u  s  OEP;  °%5-;'^rWondence  of  the 

D 1 P L O M AT  1 C   C OR R "•''-'    .  ..  „.,  ,,•.  nil    I 


\ 


^153    0Q15l3bb 


-2  4? 


T  FT  E 


iiA    *- 


OK    TIIK 


TJNITEI)    STATE  S.T!.|,t,op^f>^ 


EDITED  UNDER  DIRECTION  OF  CONGRESS 


By  FRANCIS   WHARTON, 


WITH 


PRELIMINARY   INDEX,   AND   NOTES   HISTORICAL   AND   LEGAL. 


PUBLISHED  IX  CONFORMITY  WITH  ACT  OF  CONGRESS 
OF  AUGUST  13,  1888. 


VOI^UME    I. 


washi:ngtox: 

aOVERNMENT    PRINTING    OFFICE, 

1889. 


PREFACE. 


The  joint  resolution  approved  on  August  13,  1888,  U'Uder  which  the 
following  work  is  printed  is  as  follows: 

^'Besulvcd  bjf  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  Atnerica  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  tbero  be  printed,  iiuder  the  editorial  charge  of  Francis 
Wharton,  the  usual  uiimber  of  copies  of  a  supplement  to  the  Digest  of  International 
Law,  printed  under  joint  resolution  of  July  twenty-eigbth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
eighty-six,  and  under  the  same  conditions  and  limitations  as  are  imposed  in  said  reso- 
lution, such  supplement  containing  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  American 
Revolution,  with  historical  and  legal  notes;  and  chat  there  be  printed,  in  addition  to 
said  usual  number,  two  thousand  copies  for  tbe  use  of  the  Senate,  four  thousand  copies 
for  the  use  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  one  thousand  copies  for  the  use  of 
the  Department  of  State." 

In  the  report  submitted  to  the  Senate  on  February  6,  1888,  by  the 
Committee  on  Printing,  on  which  the  above  resolution  in  its  original 
form  was  based,  occur  these  passages : 

''A  knowledge  of  the  revolutionary  diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  United  States 
is  essential  to  the  understanding — 

"(I)  Of  our  revolutionary  history. 

"■  (2)  Of  the  treaties  executed  during  and  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  which  form 
jn  a  hirge  measure  the  basis  of  our  international  law. 

^'  This  correspondence  is  to  be  found  in  part  in  published  memoirs,  in  part  in  family 
archives,  in  part  in  the  records  of  the  Department  of  State. 

**A  portion  of  the  latter  records  was  published  by  Mr.  Sparks,  under  resolution  of 
Congress  of  March  27,  1818;  but  in  this  publication  Mr.  Sparks  omitted  letters  and 
portions  of  letters  tending  to  show — 

"(1)  The  movement  of  French  politicians  in  1776  to  supersede  Washington  by  Mar- 
shal Broglie. 

*' (2)  The  movement  by  American  politicians  in  1776-'77  to  induce  Washington's 
withdrawal  and  to  have  Franklin  recalled  from  Paris. 

"  (3)  The  atrocities  of  British  troops  and  of  refugees  in  the  United  States  put  for- 
ward by  our  diplomatists  .'is  a  claim  against  Great  Britain  and  a  set-otf  against  Brit- 
ish claims  for  indemnity  to  loyalists. 

"Aside  from  these  systematic  omissions,  imi)ortant  passages  were  dropped,  showing 
the  extent  to  which  the  fisheries,  prior  to  the  Revolution,  were  controlled  by  Ameri- 
can fishermen  ;  and,  what  is  still  more  important,  how  general  was  the  understand- 
ing between  the  negotiators  that  the  treaty  of  1782-'83  was  a  treaty  not  of  concession 
by  Great  Britain,  but  of  i)artition,  under  which  the  United  States  retained  all  the 
territorial  rights  previously  possessed  by  them  in  North  America  when  part  of  the 
British  empire. 

'*Mr.  Sparks,  in  eliminating  from  the  correspondence  the  j)assages  showing  the  in- 
trigues against  Washington,  was  no  doubt  goyernecj.  by  l^is  veueratioi^  for  Washing- 

IIX 


IV 


PREFACE. 


tou.  But  reports  of  tliese  iutrij^iies  came  afterwards  to  the  public  ear  from  other 
sources.  While,  as  thus  imperfectly  presented,  they  failed  to  exhibit  (what  the  full 
correspondence  shows)  that  unique  majesty  of  Washington,  which  compelled  those 
who  intrigued  against  him.  when  they  came  into  his  presence  and  saw  him  in  the 
solitude  of  Jiis  grandeur,  if  not  to  become,  as  was  the  case  with  De  Kalb,  loyal  adher- 
ents, at  least  to  sullenly  acquiesce  in  a  supremacy  they  were  forced  to  concede. 

"Mr.  Sparks'  excision  of  other  material,  so  important  to  us  both  in  applying  history 
and  construing  treaties,  may  be  attributed  to  what  we  now  must  consider  his  wrong 
conception  of  the  duties  of  a  reproducer  of  public  documents.  Now  we  feel  that  in 
printing  such  documents  wo  must  give  them  entire,  or,  if  we  omit,  to  note  the  omis- 
sions. Mr.  Sparks,  on  the  other  hand,  omitted  whatever  he  thought  it  was  unneces- 
sary or.  impolitic  to  jiriut;  and  he  left  no  sign  whatever  to  show  that  any  omission 
was  made.  Hence,  by  leaving  out  a  salient  point,  the  meaning  of  the  document  is 
entirely  changed  ;  as,  for  instance,  in  Silas  Deane's  letter  of  December  0,  1776,  a  state- 
ment that  De  Kalb  goes  to  America  in  connection  with  a  suggestion  that  Broglio  be 
commander-in-chief  is  turned  into  a  mere  letter  of  introduction  by  cutting  out  all 
that  relates  to  the  character  of  De  Kalb's  mission. 

"No  doubt  supposed  want  of  interest  was  the  ground  of  many  of  Mr.  Sparks'  omis- 
sions. But  the  unreliability  of  such  a  test  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that,  among  the 
passages  thus  dropped  by  him,  those  relating  to  the  tisheries  and  to  the  partition 
feature  in  the  treaty  of  peace  have  become  of  all  others  the  most  important  in  our 
pending  controversies  with  Great  Britain. 

"But  Mr.  Sparks  did  not  confine  himself  to  omissions.  He  changed  words  through- 
out the  correspondence  so  as,  in  innumerable  cases,  to  alter  the  style;  in  others,  to 
alter  the  sense.     Of  these  changes  the  following  are  a  fevA^  illustrations  : 


"Galleons  which  have  been  impatiently 
expected."     (Franklin.) 

"Negotiations  relative  to  the  prelimina- 
ries."    (Franklin.) 

"  Some  how  or  other."     (Livingston.) 

"Wish  to  know."     (Livingston.) 

"Appropriation  of  each  State."  (Living- 
ston.) 

"Arguments  taken  from  treaties."  (Liv- 
ingston.) 

"Lengthy."     (Livingston.) 

"  He  (Arnold)  seems  to  mix  as  naturally 
with  that  polluted  court  (England) 
as  pitch  with  tar."     (Franklin.) 

"George  Ill's  character  for  falsehood  and 
dissimulation."     (Franklin.) 

"Balance  of  the  soldiers  in  our  hands." 
(Livingston.) 

"Any  civilized  people."    (Franklin,  when 
si)eakiug  of  England's  spoliations  as 
unworthy  of,  etc.) 
"While  in  the  minority."     (Franklin.) 
"Evacuate  their  posts."     (Livingston.) 

"I  think  the  best  answer  will  be  the  boy's 
reply  to  Pope's  God  mend  /ue." 

"Necessity  of  which"  measures  of  Con- 
gress.    (Adams.) 


"Galliots  which  have  been  patiently  ex- 
])ected."     (Sparks,  ii,  43.) 

"Negotiations  relative  to  the  plenipoten- 
tiaries."    (Sparks,  ii,  171.) 

"By  any  means."     (Sparks,  ii,  181.) 

"  Like  to  know."     (Sparks,  ii,  184.) 

"Proportion  of  each  State."  (Sparks,  ii, 
188.) 

"Agriements  taken  from  treaties." 
(Sparks,  ii,  196.) 

"Long."     (Sparks,  ii,  208.) 

Left,  out  by  Sparks,  ii,  226. 


Left  out  by  Sparks,  ii,  271, 

"  Remainder  of  the  soldiers  in  our  hands." 

(Sparks,  ii,  387.) 
"Any    individual  people."     (Sparks,    ii, 

394.) 

"  While  in  the  ministry."  Sparks,  ii ,  400.) 
"  Evacuate  their  ports."  (Sparks,  ii,  441.) 
Omitted  by  Sparks,  ii,  426. 

"  Sincerity  of  which."    (Sparks,  ii,  576.) 


PREFACE. 


'•  Siibiuissioa  to  Parliameut."     (Atlanis.) 

"Whether  any  (loan)  may  be  procnred 
time  must  discover.  I  confers  I  have 
no  very  sanguine  hopes.^^     (Adams.) 

''This  couuection  (between  Holland  and 
United  States)  will  not  probably 
show  itself  in  a  puhlie  manmv  before 
a  peace,"  etc.     (Adams.) 

"All  the  maritime  commerce  of  lower 
Germany."     (Adams.) 

"  Fonr  hnndred  leagnes  "  journey,  etc., 
our  health  was  "several  times  much 
affected."     (Adams, ) 

*'  I  have  uow  very  san<^uine  hopes  that  a 
solid  treaty  will  soon  be  concluded 
with  Spain."     (Adams.) 

Congress  "should  have  the  earliest  infor- 
mation of  these  things."     (Adams.) 

"Treachery  and  falsehood."  (La  Fayette, 
speaking  of  certain  British  state- 
ments. ) 

"Lords  Camden,  EfiQngham,"  etc.,  "are 
clearly  aud.  decidedly  for  it  (inde- 
pendence). The  rest  of  the  patriots 
are  for  independence  on  ceriain  provi- 
soes, such  as  England  to  retain  a  nom- 
inal sovereignty.^^     (Adams.) 

"  They  have  not  more  than  four  thousand 
regular  troops  in  Ireland,  and  these 
chieliy  horse ;  nor  more  than  ten  thou- 
sand in  England,  and  these  chiefly  horse." 
(Adams.) 

In  the  ship  of  war  Auvergne,  "  Colonel 
Commandant  the  Viscount  de  Laval, 
and  in  second  the  Count  de  Lameth." 
(Adams.) 

"A  most  important  declaration;"  "one 
would  think  it  impossible  that  one 
man  of  sense  in  the  world  could  se- 
riously believe  that  we  could  thus 
basely  violate  our  faith,  thus  unrea- 
sonably quarrel  with  our  best  friends 
(France),  and  madly  attach  ourselves 
to  our  bitterest  enemies."     (Adams.) 

"Her  (England's)  present  exhausted  and 
ruined  condition."     (Adams.) 

"  He  (Rodney)  bad  to  expect  to  meet  the 
whole  Spanish  squadron  at  Cadiz, 
and  in  those  seas,  and  he  had  reason  to 
expect  that  a  strong  squadron  from  Brest 
would  follow  him." 


"  Subjugation  to  Parliament."     (Sparks, 

ii,  Gil.) 
Passage  in  italics  omittetl  by  Sparks,  ii, 

582. 

Words  in  italics  omitted  by  Sparks,  ii, 
592. 


Word  "  maritime"  left}  out  by  Sparks,  ii, 
597. 

"Five  hundred  leagues "  journey,  etc., 
our  health  was  '"several  times  af- 
fected."    (Sparks,  ii,  6*27.) 

"I  have  now  very  solid  hopes  that  a  treaty 
will  soon  be  concluded  with  Spain." 
(Sparks,  ii,  G28. ) 

Congress  "should  have  the  exactest  in- 
formation of  these  things."  (Sparks, 
ii,  630.) 

"Misrepresentations."  (Sparks,  ii,  632.) 
(In  this  letter  of  a  page^Sparks  has 
made  eleven  other  changes.) 

"Lords  Camden,  EfiQngham,"  etc.,  "are 
clearly  and  distinctly  for  itj"  etc. ; 
"  the  rest  of  the  patriots  are  for  sover- 
eignty." (Sparks,  ii,  662,  omitting 
passage  in  italics.) 

Passage  in  italics  omitted  by  Sparks,  ii, 
662. 


"  Colonel  commandant  the  Viscount  de 
Lavel.  Words  in  italics  left  out. 
(Sparks,  ii,  C^iiG.) 

Sparks  changes   (ii,     672-3)    "most   im- 
portant" to  "decided,"  "faith"  to 
^    "truth,"  and  "  bitterest  "  to  "  bellig- 
erent." 


Words  in  italics  left  out  by  Sparks,  ii, 

673. 
Passage  in   italics  omitted.     (Sparks,  ii, 

675.) 


VI 


PREFACE. 


The  Dutch  "may  overleap  the  bouuds 
of  these  privileges  as  io  he  undutcli- 
ijied."    (Adams.) 

"In  so  immense  au  army  (the  Irish  vol- 
unteers of  1780),  composed  of  so  many 
parties  which  one  would  suppose  dis- 
cordant."    (Adams.) 

"There  is  not  enough  of  religion  of  any 
kind  among  the  people  in  power  in 
England  to  make  the  Americans  very 
fond  of  them."     (Adams.) 

"Ambition  and  avarice  at  last  predom- 
inated over  every  passion  of  his  heart 
and  principle  of  his  mind."    (Adams. ) 

"  Without  a  superiority  of  naval  force, 
New  York  will  never  be  taken."  (Ad- 
ams.) 


"Garrisons  of  all  their  posts.  "  *  * 
They  have  in  Halifax  and  the  other 
posts  of  the  province,"  etc.    (Adams. ) 

"  It  is  reported  that  they  denied."  (Ad- 
ams.) 

"A  force  of  sixty  thousand  men."  (Ad- 
ams.) 

"The  combined  powers"  (France  and  the 
United  States).     (Adams.) 

"The  same  reasons  determined  me  to  com- 
municate nothiug  to  the  regency," 
etc.     (Adams.) 


"/  ivish  I  could  give  hopes  of  speedy  success 
in  ihis  business  (loan  in  Holland),  Ijut 
I  fear,"  etc. 

"He  (Mr.  Laurens)  is  iil  of  a  lax,  much 

emaciated,  and  very  much  invective," 

etc. 
"Experience   demonstrates  at  this  day 

in  Europe  what  dependence  is  to  be 

placed  upon  such  militia." 


"Posture   of  defense."     "A  manner  the 
most  afifectiouate."     (Adams.) 


Words  in  italics  omitted.  (Sparks,  ii, 
701.) 

"  In  so  innocent  an  army,  composed  of  so 
many  discordant  parties."  (Sparks, 
iii,14.) 

"  There  is  not  enough  religion  of  any  kind 
among  the  great  in  England  to  make 
the  Americans  very  fond  of  them. 
(Sparks,  iii,  74.) 

"Ambition  and  avarice  at  last  predomi- 
nated over  every  principle  of  his 
mind."     (Sparks,  iii,  145.) 

"  Without  a  superiority  of  naval  force, 
clear  and  indisputable,  New  York  will 
never  be  taken."  (Sparks,  iii,  179.) 
(In  this  letter,  which  is  one  of  great 
historical  importance,  Mr.  Sparks  has 
made  more  than  fifty  changes.) 

"Garrisons  of  all  their  ports.  *  *  * 
They  have  in  Halifax  and  the  other 
ports  of  the  province,"  etc.  (Sparks, 
iii,  181.) 

"They  denied."     (Sparks,  iii,  214.) 


"A  force  of  forty  thousand  men."  (Sparks, 
iii,  215.) 

"The  combined  forces."  (Sparks,  iii,  219.) 

"  I  then  inquired  whether  it  would  be 
proper  to  communicate  anything  to 
the  regency,  etc.,  and  I  was  advised 
against  it,"  etc.  (Sparks,  iii,  240.) 
(In  this  and  the  next  letter  more 
than  thirty  alterations  are  made  by 
Sparks. ) 

Wo  ds  in  italics  left  out  by  Sparks,  iii,  262. 


"He  is  sick  with  a  cholera,  much  ema- 
ciated, and  very  much  incensed,"  etc. 
(Sparks,  iii,  2G4.) 

Italics  left  out,  and  also  a  page  describing 
the  atrocities  of  a  British  invasion  of 
Holland,  with  over  thirty  other  al- 
terations made  in  the  same  letter. 
(Sparks,  iii,  289.) 

"State  of  defense."  "A  manner  the  most 
friendly."     (Sparks,  iii,  305.) 


PREFACE. 


VII 


Wordsinitalicsleftoiit.  (Sparks,  iii,  389.) 


"Lauds  bordering  on  the  said  port  *  *  * 
merchants,  factors,  and  commission- 
ers who  will  all  serve  punctually." 
(Sparks,  iii,  409.) 

"Destination"  changed  to  "distinction." 
(Sparks,  iii,  435.) 

Passage  in  italics  left  out.  (Sparks,  iii, 
522. ) 


Passage  in  italics  left  out,  and  in  the  same 
letter  twenty  or  more  other  changes. 
(Sparks,  iii,  551.) 


"This commerce  alone  would  he  sufficient 
to  make  the  citij  of  Antwerp)  Jlourbli, 
and  to  make  a  revival  of  the  bright 
days   whicli   preceded  the   peace   of 
Munster."     (Adams.) 

"Canals  bordering  upon  the  said  port 
*  *  *  merchants,  factors,  and  com- 
missioners who  will  all  serve  faith- 
fully and  with  the  greatest  punctu- 
ality."    (Adams.) 

"To  seize  every  American  vessel  whose 
papers  and  *  *  *  destination  shall," 
etc.     (Adams.) 

"I  need  not  suggest  to  you  the  use  that 
should  be  made  of  this  information. 
Ton  will  see  at  once  that  it  is  not  to  he 
buried  or  paraded;  that  it  should  be 
discorend  but  not  displayed."  (R.  R. 
Livingston.) 

After  noticing  the  charge  that  certain 
letters  of  his  had  given  oifense  to 
France:  "/  hare  long  since  learned 
that  a  man  may  (^ire  (jreat  offense  and 
yet  succeed.  The  very  measure  neces- 
sary for  success  may  be  pretended  to 
give  offense."     (Adams.) 

"  Some  mad  plan  of  American  viceroys," 
etc.     (Adams.) 

"Nothing  but  that  well  hove  harpoon  iron 
thrown  by  a  Cape  Cod  whaleman,  the 
memorial  of  the  19th  of  April," 
"could  ever  have  prevented  this 
republic  from  making  a  separate 
peace,"  etc.     (Adams.) 

"The  court  i^robably  knew  that  we  are 
instructed  against  it,  and  that  Con- 
gress are  instructed  against  it."  (Ad- 
ams.) 

"The  compliments  that  have  been  paid 
me  since  my  arrival  in  France,  upon 
my  success  in  Holland,  would  be  con- 
sidered as  a  curiosit}'^  if  committed  to 
writing."  (A  series  of  tliem  follows. ) 
(Adams.) 

"As  a  rule  also  all  words  that  seemed  to  the  editor  to  be  coarse  or  undignified  are 
changed. 

"Thus,  to  'digest'  topics  appears  in  print  as  'consider'  topics. 

"Mr.  Laurens,  in  the  manuscript,  has  the  'lax.'    In  the  print  this  is  '  cholera.' 

"Mr.  Livingston,  in  a  letter  to  La  Fayette,  speaking  of  the  new  uniforms,  says: 
'You  will  be  charmed  to  see  our  countrymen  well  dressed,  since  you  used  to  admire 
them  even  in  their  naked  beauties.'  'Naked  beauties'  is  changed  to  'rags,'  while 
an  allusion  to  La  Fayette's  wife  expecting  the  birth  of  a  child  is  left  out,  and  so  is  a 
reference  by  Arthur  Lee,  in  a  coulidential  letter,  to  a  Spanish  diplomalist  as  an  'old 


"  Some  bad  plan,"  etc.     (Sparks,  iii,  559. ) 

Passage  in  italics  omitted  by  Sparks,  iii, 
63S. 


Passage  in  italics  omitted  by  Sparks,  iii, 

088. 


Omitted  by  Sparks,  iii,  697,  but  given  in 
John  Adams'  Works,  iv,  306. 


VIII  PREFACE. 

woiuau.'  Style  sometimes  may  be  substance.  At  all  events,  when  changes  are  made, 
they  should  be  noted.  But  in  the  multitude  of  changes  made  by  Mr.  Sparks,  amount- 
ing sometimes  to  a  dozen  on  a  page,  there  is  not  one  case  in  which  there  is  anything 
to  indicate  that  the  change  \Nas  made."* 

Ill  the  following  pages  the  text  of  our  diplomatic  correspondeuce,  so 
far  as  it  is  coDtaiued  in  the  Department  of  State,  is  given  in  its  integ- 
rity.   Free  use  has  also  been  made  of  the  following  : 

The  Washington,  Franklin,  and  Madison  papers,  deposited  in  the 
Department  of  State  or  published  by  editors  thereof. 

The  Franklin  correspondeuce,  iu  the  custody  of  the  American  Philo- 
sophical Society  at  Philadelphia. 

Tlie  papers  of  Samuel  Adams  and  of  other  revolutionary  statesmen, 
in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Bancroft. 

The  papers  of  John  Paul  Jones,  in  the  library  of  Congress. 

The  papers  of  Arthur  Lee,  of  which  part  is  in  the  custody  of  Harvard 
College,  part  in  that  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  part  iu 
that  of  the  University  of  Virginia. 

The  papers  of  John  Laugdon,  copies  of  which  are  in  the  Sparks  Col- 
lection in  the  library  of  Harvard  College. 

The  published  papers  of  John  Adams. 

The  papers  of  John  Jay,  as  far  as  contained  in  his  life,  b}"  his  son, 
together  with  letters  of  Jay  which  have  elsewhere  appeared. 

Gibbes'  Documentary  History  of  the  American  Eevolution. 

The  Force  Collection,  in  the  Department  of  State. 

Papers  relative  to  our  diplomacy  intercepted  by  the  British  during 
the  war,  and  by  them  published  (sometimes,  however,  in  a  corrupted 
state)  in  English  papers  or  in  Kivington's  New  York  Gazette.  Of  our 
revolutionary  transatlantic  correspondence  one  third  never  reached  its 
destination,  being  intercepted  and  placed  in  the  British  archives.  It 
is  hoped  that  efforts  will  be  made  to  procure  copies  of  these  papers  to 
fill  up  the  gaps  in  our  own  records. 

The  Laurens  Papers,  as  i»ublished  by  the  South  Carolina  Historical 
Society  and  by  the  Bradford  Club. 

Materials  for  History,  by  Frank  Moore. 

Diary  of  the  American  Eevolution,  by  Frank  Moore. 

Revolutionary  documents  in  the  possession  of  Ferdinand  J.  Dreer, 
esq.,  of  Philadelphia. 

lievolutionary  documents  published  in  the  New  England  Historical 
and  Genealogical  Register,  in  the  Magazine  of  American  History,  in 
the  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  and  by  the  his- 
torical societies  of  the  several  States. 

*  In  reprinting  the  above  several  errors  of  the  press  have  been  corrected.  Among 
the- mistranslations  is  that  of  the  famous  letter  of  the  Pope's  Nuncio  on  July  2:},  1783, 
to  Franklin,  iu  which  a  courteous  inquiry  whether  Congress  (in  view,  probably,  of 
prior  anti-papacy  colonial  legislation)  would  object  to  the  settlement  of  a  friendly 
Roman  Catholic  bishop  in  the  United  States,  is  changed  into  a  request  that  Congress 
would  elect  and  appoiut^uch  a  bishop.     (Sparks,  ii,  478.) 


PREFACE.  IX 

Documeiits  published  in  Circourt's  translation  of  Mr.  Bancroft's  His- 
tory, by  Mr.  Bancroft  in  bis  own  works,  and  by  De  Witt  in  bis  work  on 
Jefferson. 

Doniol's  Histoire  de  la  Participation  de  la  France  a  Pfitablissement 
d'AmerJqne,  Corresi)ondance  Diplomatique,  et  Docnments,  of  which  the 
third  volnme  appeared  in  December,  1888. 

Transcripts  from  the  Lansdowne  manuscripts  and  from  the  archives 
of  foreign  courts,  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Bancroft,  at  Washington, 
and  in  the  Sparks  Collection  in  the  library  of  Harvard  College.  For 
the  use  I  have  been  permitted  to  make  of  these  valnable  collections  I 
desire  to  make  particular  acknowledgment.  Mr  Bancroft  has  in  the 
kindest  way  given  me  the  aid  not  only  of  his  excellent  library,  but  of 
his  own  authoritative  and  admirable  judgment  on  matters  connected 
with  our  history. 

To  Mr.  AVinsor,  librarian  of  Harvard  College,  to  the  professors  of 
the  University  of  Virginia,  and  to  the  officers  of  the  Historical  Society 
and  of  tlie  American  Philosophical  Society  at  Philadelphia,  I  desire  to 
make  my  particular  acknowledgments  for  their  courtes}^  in  permitting 
me  to  examine  the  historical  manuscripts  in  their  custody.  I  have  also 
derived  much  valuable  assistance  from  Mr.  Charles  Deane,  of  Cam- 
bridge, through  whom  I  have  been  able  to  obtain  information  as  to 
papers  in  the  archives  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society. 

Mr.  Sparks,  however  much  we  may  dissent  from  his  views  as  to  the 
right  of  an  editor  to  change  the  words  of  his  text  and  to  strike  from  it 
what  he  conceives  should  not  be  published,  deserves  a  high  tribute  for 
the  generous  zeal  with  wijich  he  collected  and  preserved  masses  of  im- 
portant manuscripts  relative  to  our  history,  and  for  the  judiciousness, 
fairness  and  patriotic  spirit  by  which  the  o|)inions  expressed  by  him 
are  marked.  And  it  is  but  just  to  say  that  the  suppression  of  a  large 
part  of  the  i)assages  omitted  by  him,  comprising  those  relating  to  the 
barbarisms  of  the  revolutionary  war,  and  those  bearing  on  then  pend- 
ing issues,  may  have  been  directed  by  the  President,  under  stress  of  the 
resolution  of  March  27,  1818,  so  as  to  avoid  touching  wounds  still  sore, 
or  embarrassing  negotiations  then  in  progress.  Personal  considera- 
tions, also,  may  have  induced  the  omission  of  passages  reflecting  on 
eminent  men,  who  in  1816  were  still  aliv^e  or  were  but  recently  deceased. 
Those  reasons  no  longer  exist.  It  is  due  not  only  to  historic  truth,  but 
to  the  full  vindication  of  those  great  men  by  whom  our  Eevolutiou  was 
led,  that  their  diplomatic  correspondence  should  now  be  given  as  written 
by  themselves.  F.  W. 

February,  1889. 

II   WH. 


A  BRIEF  SKirrCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 


BY 

John  Bassett  Moore. 


The  illustrious  editor  of  the  work  uow  giveu  to  the  public  was  denied 
the  privilege  of  seeing  more  than  a  fragment  of  it  in  print.  He  died 
at  the  moment  when  he  had  finished  its  preparation  for  the  press,  and 
before  the  proofs  of  the  first  volume,  as  it  now  stands,  had  been  com- 
pleted ;  and  it  fell  to  others  to  supervise  the  work  of  publication*.  This 
duty  was  imposed  by  resolution  of  Congress  upon  the  present  writer, 
as  literary  executor  of  the  deceased  editor,  and  has  been  discharged 
strictly  within  the  scope  of  the  authority  conferred  by  the  resolution. 
With  the  exception  of  clerical  corrections  in  the  citation  of  authorities 
and  in  the  noting  of  references,  no  departures  have  been  made  from 
the  editor's  manuscript,  and  it  may  be  said  that  the  work  appears  as 
he  left  it. 

As  the  editor,  up  to  the  very  hour  of  his  death,  was  busily  engaged 
upon  this  his  last  great  task,  as  if  he  were  trying  securely  to  adjust 
the  capstone  upon  the  monument  of  legal  and  historical  works  which 
his  genius  and  industry  had  created,  it  is  appropriate  that  a  place 
should  be  given  here  to  a  brief  account  of  his  life  and  labors. 

Francis  Wharton  was  born  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  on  the  7th  of  March,  1820.  On  his  paternal  side,  he 
came  of  a  race  of  men  which  has  given  many  eminent  names  to  the 
commerce,  the  politics,  and  the  bar  of  his  native  State.  In  the  early 
days  of  the  commonwealth  his  family  belonged  to  the  Society  of  Friends. 
But  his  father,  Thomas  Isaac  Wharton,  whose  mother  was  Margaret 
Rawle,  the  bearer  of  a  patronymic  distinguished  in  the  legal  annals  of 
the  country,  left  that  religious  sect  early  in  life  to  become  a  captain  of 
infantry  in  the  war  of  1812.  At  the  close  of  the  conflict  he  entered 
upon  the  practice  of  law  in  Philadelphia,  and  soon  afterwards  married 
Arabella,  second  daughter  of  John  Grifltith,  a  merchant  of  that  city, 
son  of  the  Attorney-General  of  New  Jersey  of  the  same  name,  and 
brother  of  William  Griffith,  a  judge  of  the  circuit  court  of  the  United 
States,  and  author  of  several  legal  treatises.*  This  lady  is  said  to  have 
been  distinguished  for  great  loveliness  of  character,  a  fine  poetic  fancy, 
and  a  rare  power  of  felicitous  expression. 

As  a  lawyer,  Thomas  Isaac  Wharton  was  remarkably  successful,  but 
he  also  exhibited  strong  literary  instincts.     In  his  earlier  days  he  con- 

*  Memoir  of  Dr.  Fraocia  Whartou:  Philadelphia,  1891. 

XI 


XII  A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

tribiited  to  the  "Portfolio'^  under  Dennie's  mauagemeiit,  and  was  sub- 
sequently one  of  the  editors  of  the  ''Analectic  Magazine."  Later, 
when  he  had  devoted  himself  more  strictly  to  legal  studies,  he,  in  con- 
nection with  others,  was  employed  upon  the  i)reparation  of  a  draft  of  a 
code  of  the  civil  statutes  of  Pennsylvania.  He  was  also  the  editor  of 
the  first  edition  of  Wharton's  (Penna.)  Digest,  and  of  the  six  volumes 
of  Wharton's  Eeports. 

At  the  age  of  seventeen  Francis  Wharton  was  entered  as  a  student  at 
Yale  College.  In  1839  he  was  graduated  j  and  he  chen  returned  to  Phila- 
delphia, and  became  a  student  of  law  in  his  father's  office.  In  1843  he 
was  admitted  to  the  bar.  While  a  student  of  law  he  wrote  constantly  for 
the  periodicals  of  the  daj^  and  contributed  many  articles  to  "  Hunt's 
Merchants'  Magazine."  This  literary  habit  clung  to  him  after  he  had 
entered  upon  the  practice  of  his  profession,  though  his  success  at  the  bar 
was  rapid.  He  edited  for  a  time  the  ''^orth  American  and  United  States 
Gazette,"  and  subsequently,  while  still  engaged  in  the  practice  of  the 
law,  the  ''  Episcopal  Kecorder."  He  also  participated  in  political  affairs 
as  a  strenuous  supporter  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  when  John  K. 
Kane  was  Attorney-General  of  Pennsylvania  was  one  of  his  assistants. 
Jt  was  in  this  position  that  he  was  first  led  to  write  on  the  criminal  law 
and  to  the  composition  of  practical  legal  tieatises. 

In  1854  there  came  a  turning  point  in  his  career.  Two  years  pre- 
viously he  had  married  Miss  Sydney  Paul,  daughter  of  Comegys  Paul, 
of  Philadelphia,  and  her  death  in  September,  1854,  resulting  in  the 
breaking  up  of  his  home,  seems  to  have  quickened  and  confirmed  the 
inclination  he  had  long  exhibited  for  charitable  and  religious  occupa- 
tions. It  is  said  that  while  a  student  of  law  he  desired  to  become  a 
clergyman,  but  was  dissuaded  by  his  father.  But  twelve  years  after 
his  admission  to  the  bar  he  finally  abandoned  the  active  duties  of  a 
legal  practitioner,  and  became  a  teacher  chiefly  on  theological  topics. 
In  1856  he  made  a  tour  through  the  West,  distributing  Bibles  and 
tracts,  and  during  this  journey  visited  Kenyon  College  (connected  with 
which  is  a  theological  seminary),  at  Gam  bier,  Ohio.  Here  he  was 
induced  to  accept  a  professorship,  and  while  he  lectured  on  English 
history  and  literature  and  on  constitutional  law,  he  entered  deeply  into 
the  religious  life  of  the  place  and  delivered  discourses  on  theological 
subjects.  A  part  of  these  may  be  found  in  a  book  entitled  ''Modern 
Theism,"  which  contains  a  series  of  lectures  delivered  by  him  to  the 
students  on  "  Modern  Infidelity." 

In  1859  Dr.  Wharton  paid  his  first  visit  to  Europe,  and  after  his 
return  was  married,  on  December  27, 18G0,  to  the  daughter  of  Lewis  R. 
Ashurst,  of  Philadelphia.  In  1862  he  fulfilled  his  long-cherished  de- 
sire to  enter  the  ministry  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  He  was  ordained  a 
deacon  at  Cleveland,  Ohio,  and  a  month  later  received  priest's  orders. 
The  first  x)arish  to  which  he  was  called  was  that  of  St.  Paul's,  at  Brook- 
line,  Mass.,  whither  he  went  in  1863.     After  six  years  of  successful 


A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON.        XIII 

labor  in  this  place  be  weut  to  Europe  for  a  second  time,  and  wbile  tbere 
completed  bis  work  on  tbe  *'  Conflict  of  Laws,''  wbicb  bore  evidence  of 
a  reviving  interest  in  purely  legal  studies,  wbicb  be  bad  never  entirely 
abandoned.  Fiom  tbis  period  on  be  devoted  more  and  more  of  bis  time 
to  tbe  composition  of  works  on  legal  topics. 

On  bis  return  from  Europe  Dr.  Wbarton,  tinding  tbat  an  old  affection 
of  tbe  tbroat  incapacitated  bim  from  preacbing,  resigned  bis  parisb  and 
accepted  a  professorsbip  in  tbe  Seminary  of  tbe  Episcopal  Cburcb  at 
Cambridge,  wbere  be  lectured,  among  otber  tbings,  on  Ecclesiastical 
Polity  and  Canon  Law.  At  tbe  same  time  be  delivered  lectures  at  tbe 
Boston  University  on  tlie  Conflict  of  Laws.  Wbile  tbus  busily  engaged 
as  a  teacber  be  produced  in  rapid  succession  works  on  Negligence, 
Agency,  and  Evidence.  But  tbe  stress  of  bis  many  occupations  and  tbe 
sedentary  mode  of  life  wliicb  tbey  necessitated  were  too  wearing,  and 
tbe  pbysical  weakness,  especially  in  tbe  tbroat  and  beart,  wbicb  tbey 
engendered,  compelled  bim  in  1881  to  give  up  lecturing  and  go  again  to 
Europe.  He  remained  abroad  till  tbe  spring  of  1883,  wben  be  returned 
to  tbe  United  States  and  establisbed  bis  bome  in  bis  native  city  of 
Pbiladelpbia,  intending  to  devote  bimself  for  tbe  future  to  bis  legal 
publications.    Tbis  plan,  bowever,  was  soon  altogetber  cbanged. 

Early  in  tbe  year  1885  Dr.  Wbarton  was  invited  to  take  tbe  post  of 
Examiner  of  Claims,  or  Solicitor,  for  tbe  Department  of  State,  at  Wasb- 
ington.  After  due  reflection  be  accepted  tbe  position,  and  late  in  Marcb 
entered  upon  tbe  performance  of  its  duties. 

It  would  be  difticult  to  conceive  of  greater  fitness  of  person  for 
place  tban  tbat  of  Dr.  Wbarton  for  tbe  office  to  wbicb  be  was  called. 
Altbougb  be  left  tbe  bar  for  tbe  cburcb  early  in  life,  tbe  impress  of  bis 
legal  training  remained  and  bis  predilection  for  tbe  law  never  forsook 
bim.  Wbatever  migbt  be  tbe  subject  tbat  occupied  bis  attention,  it 
was  to  its  legal  aspects  tbat  be  was  especially  attracted.  His  mind 
was  singularly  versatile,  and  bis  sympatbies  were  broad  and  easily 
toucbed.  He  possessed,  besides,  a  strong  vein  of  sentiment,  wbicb  not 
infrequently  bad  a  controlling  effect  upon  bis  conduct.  He  was  fond 
of  poetry,  and  sougbt  diversion  and  recreation  in  works  of  fiction. 
Endowed  witb  sucb  generous  tastes  and  faculties,  tecbnical  disputa- 
tions were  little  to  bis  liking.  Tbe  narrow  view  of  a  question  never 
appealed  to  bim.  It  was  in  tbe  discussion  and  application  of  broad 
and  general  principles  tbat  be  found  bis  greatest  deligbt,  and  it  was 
in  tbe  natural  dev^elopraent  of  tbis  liberal  disposition  tbat  tbe  lawyer 
became  tbe  eminent  and  accomplisbed  student  of  jurisprudence. 

In  addition  to  bis  knowledge  of  law,  Dr.  Wbarton  possessed  an  ex- 
tensive acquaintance  witb  bistory.  He  was  accustomed  to  say  tbat 
Englisbmen  knew  less  tban  Americans  of  Englisb  bistory,  and  if  be 
was  to  be  taken  as  an  example  of  bis  countrymen  bis  observation  was 
certainly  correct.  His  knowledge  of  tbe  bistory  of  England  was  singu- 
larly tborougb  and  minute.    It  was  not  confined  to  tbe  leading  inci- 


XIV        A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

dents  which  are  stated  in  the  formal  histories,  but  extended  to  the  lives, 
the  letters,  and  the  minor  accounts  of  men  and  women.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  the  history  of  the  United  States,  he  knew^  more  thoroughly 
that  of  England  than  of  any  other  country;  but  he  was  also  a  diligent 
student  of  history,  both  ancient  and  modern,  in  the  most  general  sense. 
What  he  read  he  was  enabled  to  retain  by  the  possession  of  an  unusual 
memory.  He  made  few  notes  and  kept  no  common  idace  books,  and 
did  not  burden  his  mind  with  useless  dates  and  facts.  His  memory 
was  jihilosophical  rather  than  circumstantial.  If  questioned  in  resj)ect 
to  a  particular  circumstance,  he  often  expressed  an  inability  to  answer. 
But,  if  called  upon  to  consider  a  particular  subject,  he  was  able,  with 
a  rapidity  and  completeness  seldom  witnessed,  to  draw  from  the  stores  of 
his  memory  a  copious  supply  of  historical  illustrations  and  analogies. 

The  labors  of  Dr.  Wharton  in  history  and  jurisprudence  and  his 
fondness  for  the  discussion  of  general  principles  led  him  to  the  study 
of  international  law,  and  prepared  the  way  for  his  eminence  as  a  pub- 
licist. His  first  important  achievement  in  this  field  is  found  in  his 
treatise  on  the  ^'Conflict  of  Laws,"  or  "Private  International  Law,'' 
which  includes  a  comparative  view  of  Anglo- American,  Eoman,  Ger- 
man, and  French  jurisprudence.  Concerning  this  work,  an  intelligent 
and  discriminating  critic  in  the  "Southern  LawEeview"  expressed  the 
opinion  that  upon  it  would  rest  its  author's  lasting  and  solid  fame. 
There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Dr.  Wharton  shared  this  opinion,  for  he 
took  an  evident  pride  in  the  book,  and  often  referred  to  the  criticism  in 
the  "  Southern  Law  Eeview"  as  one  of  the  most  appreciative  and  sat- 
isfactory ever  written  upon  any  of  his  works  In  1885  appeared  his 
"  Commentaries  on  Law,"  which  embrace  chapters  on  international 
law,  both  public  and  private. 

Such  was  the  preparation  of  Dr.  Wharton  for  the  discharge  of  his 
new  duties.  Learned  both  in  history  and  in  jurisprudence,  and  with  a 
wide  and  established  reputation  as  a  i)ublicist,  he  was  able  to  speak  as 
one  having  authority.  He  was  not  compelled  to  search  for  j)rinciples 
and  precedents;  he  had  already  reduced  them  to  possession,  and  it 
was  only  necessary  for  him  to  apply  them.  The  value  of  such  a  prepa- 
ration can  be  estimated  only  when  we  consider  the  distinctive  charac- 
ter of  international  law  as  a  branch  of  jurisprudence.  The  average 
practitioner,  trained  in  the  strict  school  of  the  common  law  and  accus- 
tomed to  the  technical  disputations  of  the  ordinary  judicial  courts,  finds 
himself,  when  called  upon  to  deal  with  matters  involving  international 
law,  confronted  with  a  new  type  of  questions,  in  the  solution  of  which 
his  previous  education  affords  him  little  assistance.  In  reality  one  of 
his  first  tasks  will  be  to  rid  his  mind,  so  far  as  he  may  be  able,  of  its 
prepossession  for  technical  reasoning,  The  books  which  he  has  been 
accustomed  to  consult,  with  a  view  to  obtain  a  "  case  in  point,"  can  no 
longer  be  accepted  as  guides.  Even  if  he  should  find  in  the  courts  of 
his  own  couutfj  Ai  decision  upoa  the  quQstiqa  wUich  he  has  under  cou- 


A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON.         XV 

sideration,  he  would  then  be  required  to  ascertain  whether  that  decision 
had  been  accepted  as  being  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  inter- 
national law;  for  in  such  matters  one  nation  is  not  bound  to  accept  as 
conclusive  the  decisions  of  the  courts  of  another.  He  would  then  find 
it  necessary  to  embark  upon  the  study  of  history  and  the  w^orks  of  pub- 
licists, and  to  apply  with  such  guides  the  principles  of  reason  and  jus- 
tice. Although  in  this  department  of  learning  the  United  States  can 
claim  such  distinguished  names  as  those  of  Wheaton,  Story,  Kent, 
Lawrence,  Field,  and  Wharton,  the  study  of  international  law  has  for 
the  most  part  been  neglected  in  this  country.  When  the  subject  is 
taught  in  the  schools,  the  course  of  instruction  is  usually  confined  to  a 
few  lectures  of  a  more  or  less  perfunctory  character,  and  perhaps  to  a 
few  lessons  from  text- books  which  deal  with  the  most  elementary  doc- 
trines, '^o  attempt  is  made  to  trace  the  history  of  the  subject,  and  the 
remarkable  contribution  of  the  Governnieut  of  the  United  States  to  its 
progressive  development  is  almost  wholly  overlooked.  A  gentleman 
not  long  since  in  the  diplomatic  service  of  the  United  States  recently 
told  the  writer  that  one  of  the  most  distinguished  publicists  of  Europe 
declared  to  him  that  he  found  more  to  interest  and  instruct  him  in  the 
annual  volume  of  the  Foreign  Eelations  of  the  United  States  than  in  any 
other  current  publication  on  international  subjects.  This,  he  said,  was 
due  to  the  freedom  and  originality  with  which  questions  were  treated; 
a  circumstance  in  large  measure  attributable  to  the  unique  position  of 
the  United  States  in  the  family  of  nations. 

Dr.  Wharton  entered  upon  the  discharge  of  his  duties  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  with  all  his  accustomed  energy  and  enthusiasm,  and  for  a 
time  found  ample  occupation  in  the  daily  work  of  his  ofQce.  Coming 
into  the  place  soon  after  a  change  of  administration,  he  was  required 
to  give  opinions  upon  a  large  number  of  complaints  which  had  in  the 
interval  been  submitted  to  the  Department  with  a  view  to  their  diplo- 
matic presentation  to  foreign  governments.  This  influx  of  claims 
attends  every  change  of  administration  without  reference  to  its  polit- 
ical character.  The  principle  of  res  judicata^  though  not  infrequently 
invoked,  is  not  applied  with  the  same  strictness  in  the  executive  depart- 
ments as  in  the  courts;  and  each  suitor  whose  claim  may  have  been 
the  subject  of  an  adverse  decision  findi-rroom  to  hope  that  in  the  change 
of  the  head  of  the  department  his  complaint  may  receive  favorable  con- 
sideration. In  the  first  year  of  his  official  life  Dr.  Wharton  gave  for- 
mal written  opinions  upon  221  claims  involving  various  questions  of 
law.  But  his  labors  were  not  in  the  mean  time  restricted  to  the  exami- 
nation of  claims.  Questions  of  international  policy  were  also  the  sub- 
ject of  his  consideration.  In  the  spring  of  1885  the  Colombian  Gov- 
ernment, with  a  view  to  suppress  an  insurrection  which  had  arisen  in 
that  country,  issued  two  decrees  of  great  importance  to  foreign  nations. 
By  the  first  of  these  decrees,  certain  ports  then  in  the  possession  of 
,the  insurgents  were  declared  tp  be  closed  to  foreign  copimerce;  and  th^ 


XVI         A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

penalties  and  forfeitures  aftixed  by  Colombian  law  to  smuggling  were 
denounced  against  the  goods  which  might  be  imported  into  or  exported 
from  those  ports,  and  against  the  vessels  which  might  engage  in  trade 
with  them.  By  the  second  decree  it  was  declared  that  the  vessels 
which,  under  the  flag  of  Colombia,  were  then  employed  by  the  insur- 
gents in  hostile  foreign  commerce  with  that  port  did  not  belong  to  the 
Colombian  Government,  and  had  no  right  to  fly  the  Colombian  flag; 
and  for  these  reasons  they  were  declared  to  be  beyond  the  pale  of  inter- 
national law,  and  their  repression  by  the  armed  forces  of  friendly  pow- 
ers was  invited.  These  decrees  raised  two  questions,  on  which  Dr. 
Wharton  always  held  and  expressed  very  decided  views — the  rights  of 
neutrals  and  the  international  status  of  insurgents.  The  United  States 
refused  to  treat  the  decrees  as  sustainable  on  principles  of  international 
law.  The  right  of  a  government  t^  close,  by  a  decree,  ports  not  in  its 
possession,  not  actually  blockaded,  was  denied.  At  the  same  time  the 
Colombian  minister  was  informed  that  the  United  States  would  not 
treat  the  vessels  of  the  insurgents  as  pirates.  It  is  not  improper  to 
say  that  Dr.  Wharton  materially  contributed,  by  his  learning  and  skill, 
to  the  argument  made  by  the  United  States  on  that  occasion. 

Before  the  close  of  his  first  year  in  the  Department  of  State  Dr. 
Wharton  began  the  compilation  of  a  digest  of  the  opinions  and  deci- 
sions of  executive  and  judicial  ofdcers  of  the  United  States  on  ques- 
tions of  international  law,  with  legal  and  historical  notes.  The  work 
being  too  large  and  scarcely  popular  enough  in  character  to  be  under- 
taken by  a  private  publisher,  its  printing  was  provided  for  by  a  reso- 
lution of  Congress.  An  intelligent  critic  has  recently  observed  that  if  Dr. 
Wharton  had  done  nothing  else  during  his  industrious  life  for  the  sci- 
ence of  jurisprudence,  the  ''International  Law  Digest"  would,  quite 
apart  from  his  labors  in  the  field  of  criminal  law  and  of  the  conflict  of 
laws,  be  his  enduring  monument.  Such  defects  as  the  work  possesses 
are  inherent  in  its  character.  It  was  drawn  not  only  from  published 
documents,  but  also  from  the  unpublished  records  of  the  Department 
of  State,  beginning  at  the  origin  of  the  Government.  In  dealing  with 
the  latter  it  was  necessary,  owing  to  the  number  of  subjects  treated 
and  the  voluminous  character  of  the  discussions,  to  omit  a  great  deal, 
and  to  select  such  parts  as  were  deemed  illustrative  of  the  doctrines 
most  consistently  maintained.  Such  a  process  of  selection  necessarily 
reflects  in  some  degree  an  editor's  personal  bias.  But  the  *'  Interna- 
tional Law^  Digest''  remains  a  monuuient  to  its  compiler's  learning  and 
industry,  and  is  full  of  interest  and  instruction.  The  first  edition  was 
soon  distributed,  and  in  1887,  by  direction  of  Congress,  a  second  edition 
was  printed. 

After  the  publication  of  this  work  Dr.  Wharton  undertook  the  labor 
of  editing  the  "Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  American  liev^olu- 
tion."  Provision  for  printing  was  again  made  b^^  Congress,  and  he 
worked  at  his  new  task  incessantly  up  to  the  date  of  his  death.     Only 


A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON.       XVII 

a  few  days  before  that  event  he  received  and  corrected  some  proofs  of 
the  first  volume. 

This  brief  outline  of  the  life  of  Dr.  Wharton  during-  the  period  of  less 
than  four  years  which  he  spent  in  the  Department  of  State  presents  a 
record  of  unusual  character.  The  activity  of  his  mind  was  incessant, 
and  he  wrote  with  rapidity;  but,  with  all  his  learning  and  all  his  facility, 
it  would  have  been  impossible  to  accomplish  in  the  short  space  of  four 
years  the  immense  and  varied  tasks  he  undertook,  if,  in  addition  to  his 
other  (qualities,  he  had  not  possessed  that  of  untiring  industry.  ^'  Dogged 
industry"  was  the  term  which  he  liked  to  apply  to  his  habit  of  labor. 
His  capacity  for  \vork  seemed  to  be  almost  unlimited,  and  he  was  never 
idle.  He  rose  early  in  the  morning,  usually  about  6  o'clock,  and  imme- 
diately resumed  his  tasks.  His  labors  the  days  could  not  be  said  to 
divide  ;  for  ]ie  gave  few  hours  to  sleep,  seldom  more  than  five,  and  often 
less,  and  the  first  hours  of  the  morning  generally  found  him  still  at  work. 
Sometimes  he  went  out  early  to  walk,  in  order  to  refresh  himself  for  the 
day's  labor;  and  this  was  about  the  only  physical  exercise  he  took.  He 
usually  reached  his  office  before  9  o'clock,  and  then  worked  through 
the  day  without  intermission.  He  not  onl^^  worked  constantly,  but  also 
eagerly,  in  order  to  accomplish  as  soon  as  possible  the  task  he  had  set. 
He  possessed  in  the  highest  degree  vivacity  of  intellect.  This  quality 
imparted  to  the  severest  labor  keen  and  apparent  pleasure,  and  contrib- 
uted to  sustain  his  exertions.  He  was  also  able  to  perceive  at  a  glance 
any  pertinency  in  what  he  read  to  the  subject  under  consideration.  In 
this  way  he  was  able  to  read  with  great  rapidity.  He  possessed  little 
fondness  for  books  for  their  own  sake.  They  were  merely  his  instru- 
ments. He  valued  them  solely  for  what  he  could  obtain  from  them, 
and,  after  extracting  what  suited  his  purpose,  put  them  aside.  He  was 
not  what  we  style  a  book  lover.  Hence,  as  he  lived  for  the  most  part 
in  close  proximity  to  large  public  libraries,  he  collected  few  books,  and 
his  private  library,  which  was  comparatively  small,  was  not  selected 
with  reference  to  his  work.  His  quickness  of  perception  and  his  abil- 
ity to  appreciate  at  its  relative  value  whatever  came  under  his  notice 
enabled  him  to  employ  with  unusual  ease  the  labors  of  others.  More- 
over, he  understood  so  thoroughly  and  so  comprehensively  the  subjects 
on  which  he  wrote,  that,  in  directing  and  utilizing  the  labors  of  others, 
he  was  able  to  give  to  each  thing  its  proper  place  and  its  appropriate 
effect.  Thus  he  was  not  compelled  to  complete  one  branch  of  an  argu- 
ment before  he  proceeded  to  another.  Keeping  the  whole  in  his  mind, 
he  was  able  to  pass  from  one  part  to  another,  and,  where  vacant  places 
were  left,  to  fill  them  up  as  his  collection  of  materials  was  completed. 

Dr.  Wharton's  capacity  for  productive  labor  can  not  be  more  forcibly 
shown  than  by  an  enumeration  of  his  principal  works.  His  first  repu- 
tation as  a  legal  author  was  made  by  his  writings  on  criminal  law.  His 
works  on  this  subject  are  four  in  number,  and  com[)rise  treatises  on 
"Criminal  Law," ''Criminal  Pleading  and  Practice,"  and  '•  Criiuiual 
II  WH— VOL  I 


XVIII       A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

Evidence,"  ami  two  voliiines  of  ''  Precedeuts  of  Indictments  and  Pleas." 
The  treatise  on  "Criminal  Law"  embraces  two  volumes,  and  is  now  in 
its  ninth  edition  ;  that  on  "  Criminal  Pleading  and  Practice,"  in  one  vol- 
ume, has  passed  throngh  an  equal  number  of  editions  ;  that  on  ''Crim- 
inal Evidence"  is  in  two  volumes,  and  is  also  in  its  ninth  edition. 
The  ''Precedents  of  indictments  and  Pleas,"  in  two  volumes,  has 
reached  a  fourth  edition.  In  conjunction  with  Dr.  Stille  he  wrote  a 
work  on  "Medical  Jurisprudence,"  which  is  also  in  its  fourth  edition. 
He  next  wrote  a  commentary  on  "Agency  and  Agents," in  one  volume; 
then  a  treatise  on  the  "  Law  of  Negligence,"  which  is  also  in  one  volume, 
and  has  reached  a  second  edition.  Following  these  came  his  work  on 
the  "  Conflict  of  Laws,"  also  in  its  second  edition  ;  a  commentary  on 
the  "Law  of  Evidence,"  in  two  volumes,  now  in  its  third  edition;  a 
work  on  "Contracts,"  in  two  volumes;  and  "Commentaries  on  Law,"  in 
one  volume,  Besides  these  practical  treatises,  he  published  a  volume  of 
"  State  Trials,"  a  work  full  of  historical  interest,  with  notes  written  in  a 
peculiarly  charming  style,  which  appeared  in  1849,  when  the  author  was 
twenty  nine  years  of  age.  The  "International  Law  Digest,"  to  which 
reference  has  already  been  made,comj)rises  three  volumes,  and  the  "Dip- 
lomatic Correspondence  of  the  Revolution,"  now  appears  in  six  volumes. 
In  order  to  appreciate  the  extraordinary  facility  with  which  this  large 
number  of  voluminous  works  was  prepared,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
for  some  years  his  labors  as  a  writer  of  treatises  on  law  were  suspended, 
and  that  all  through  his  life  he  was  a  constant  contributor  to  periodicals. 
An  attempt  having  been  made  to  describe  and  explain  in  a  general 
way  the  extent  of  Dr.  Warton's  achievements  as  a  publicist,  it  will  be 
interesting  to  consider  more  in  detail  the  qualities  of  his  mind,  his 
habits  of  thought,  and  the  distinguishing  traits  of  his  character.  Such 
a  combination  of  faculties  as  he  possessed  is  seldom  witnessed,  and  it 
was  only  after  seeing  him  at  his  daily  tasks  that  one  could  appreciate 
the  richness  and  variety  of  his  mental  endowments.  Eeference  has 
already  been  made  to  the  quickness  and  breadth  of  his  comprehension, 
to  his  capacity  for  labor,  and  to  the  exceptional  character  of  his 
memory.  It  is  only  by  this  combination  of  faculties  that  we  can  ac- 
count for  the  extent  of  his  acquisitions.  No  industry,  however  con- 
stant, could  have  enabled  him  to  accomplish  so  much  if  he  had  not 
possessed  extraordinary  mental  powers.  His  works  show  the  extent 
of  his  erudition.  It  was  in  his  treatise  on  the  Conflict  of  Laws,  or  Pri- 
vate International  Law,  that  he  attemj)ted  to  cover  the  widest  field  of 
legal  investigation.  If  his  acquirements  had  been  wanting  either  in 
amplitude  or  in  thoroughness,  the  defect  would  then  have  been  revealed. 
But  none  of  his  works  was  ever  received  with  more  instant  recognition 
or  with  higher  approval,  not  only  by  the  public,  but  also  by  scholars 
and  jurists.  It  did  more  than  any  other  of  his  publications  to  extend 
his  reputation  abroad,  and  rio  doubt  materially  contributed  to  form 
that  high  estimate  of  his  learning  and  abilities  which  induced  the  Uui- 


A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON.         XIX 

versity  of  Ediiibiirgli  to  confer  upon  hiia  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Laws, 
aud  the  Institute  of  International  Law  to  enroll  him  as  one  of  its  mem- 
bers. For  wlien  those  honors  were  conferred  upon  him  the  ^'  Interna- 
tional Law  Digest"  had  not  been  written. 

Dr.  Wharton  also  possessed  powers  of  imagination  of  a  high  order. 
It  is  this  that  distinguishes  the  narrow  logician  from  the  creative 
thinker.  Voltaire  said  of  Dr.  Clark  that  he  was  a  mere  reasoning  ma- 
chine. This  could  never  have  been  said  of  Dr.  Wharton.  lie  did  not, 
indeed,  possess  tiiat  highest  type  of  imagination  which  has  enabled  a 
few  men  in  different  ages  to  create  distinctive  systems  of  thought,  and 
to  connect  their  names  with  new  social,  political,  or  legal  theories.  He 
made  no  professsion  of  originality  in  this  rare  sense.  He  was  always 
ready  to  avow  his  obligations  to  others,  and  was  wont  to  disclaim  any 
originality  of  thought.  He  declared  himself  to  be  especially  indebted 
to  German  writers,  whose  language  he  understood  and  whose  works  he 
carefully  studied.  But  he  was  never  the  victim  of  logic.  He  sought 
to  discover  and  apply  principles,  and  not  merely  to  find  reasons  to 
justify  other  men's  conclusions.  He  studied  and  comprehended  ques- 
tions in  their  wider  relations,  and  not  singly  and  apart.  He  was  es- 
pecially (juick  to  perceive  analogies  and  reasoned  much  in  that  way. 
This  imparted  to  his  discussion  of  various  toi)ics  unusual  breadth  and 
suggestiveness  and  exceptional  harmoniousness  of  view. 

With  his  great  fondness  for  history,  and  his  extensive  learning,  it  is 
not  strange  that  Dr.  Wharton  should  have  dealt  much  in  precedents, 
but  he  was  never  the  slave  of  authority.  8tare  decisis  was  not  a 
rule  whose  limitative  force  he  felt  himself  bound  to  acknowledge.  "So 
it  hath  been  decided*'  was  not  enough  to  silence  his  objections.  That 
he  diligently  searched  the  books  for  opinions  and  precedents  in  order 
to  ascertain  what  had  been  determined  the  wealth  of  his  citations 
amply  shows.  He  always  knew  the  latest  cases.  But  he  never  held 
himself  to  be  precluded  from  criticising  and  disapproving  what  he 
cited,  no  matter  how  high  the  tribunal  from  which  the  expressions 
came. 

Though  Dr.  Wharton  often  dissented  from  the  authorities  he  cited, 
his  opposition  was  never  factious,  nor  the  result  of  a  fondness  for  dis- 
putation. Controversies  of  a  personal  character  he  sedulously  avoided 
esteeming  it  a  sign  of  weakness  rather  than  of  strength  to  seek  to  win 
a  cause  by  abuse  of  an  adversary.  Where  he  found  himself  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  courts,  it  was  because  their  actions  did  not  square  with  what 
he  believed  to  be  the  reason,  the  justice,  and  the  philosophy  of  the  mat- 
ter. When  of  this  conviction,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  dissent  and  protest. 
The  amplitu  le  of  his  comprehension  enabled  him  to  work  out  a  system 
of  principles  in  law,  politics,  and  theology  with  singular  clearness  and 
consistency.  To  those  principles  he  was  devotedly  attached;  and  he 
was  always  ready  to  maintain  them.  The  basal  principle  of  his  system 
was  that  of  liberty,  and  it  gave  color  and  direction  to  all  his  thoughts. 


XX  A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

There  was  notliiug  that  appealed  to  him  so  strongly  as  the  efforts  of 
men  and  of  nations  to  work  ont  the  problem  of  self-government.  He 
never  could  forget  that  it  was  by  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  revolution 
that  the  people  of  the  United  States  attained  their  independence  and 
assumed  a  place  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  annals  of  our 
early  history,  the  struggles,  the  vicissitudes,  and  the  triumphs  of  the 
makers  of  the  Kepublic  were  always  the  subjects  of  his  esi)ecial  study 
and  admiration,  and  to  the  exposition  of  the  events  of  that  period,  and 
of  the  causes  and  course  of  the  conflict,  he  devoted  the  last  hours  of  his 
life.  It  is  often  mentioned  as  the  reproach  of  scholars  and  men  of  let- 
ters that  in  the  contemplation  of  abstract  themes  they  lose  sight  of  and 
cease  to  appreciate  the  generous  motives  which  operate  upon  the  con- 
duct of  peoples  in  their  struggles  for  freedom.  In  the  critical  study  of 
the  acts  and  character  of  individuals  they  become  oblivious  of  their  sac- 
rifices and  patriotic  exertions.  It  was  not  so  with  Dr.  Wharton.  He 
had  no  sympathy  with  that  spirit  of  detraction  which  seeks  to  belittle 
the  beginnings  of  American  history.  He  was  intensely  patriotic  and 
intensely  American.  It  was  his  especial  delight  to  dwell  upon  the  sim- 
ple life  and  the  simple  manners  of  our  Revolutionary  period.  He  was 
beyond  that  narrow  conception  which  confounds  simplicity  with  bar- 
barism. It  is  the  tendency  of  society  in  every  age  to  consider  itself  as 
the  best  exponent  of  civilization,  and  to  regard  its  forms  and  ceremo- 
nies as  the  embodiment  and  the  test  of  progress  and  refinement.  This 
delusion  Dr.  Wharton  did  not  share.  He  was  sensitive  to  the  conven- 
tionalities of  life,  but  he  was  able  to  look  beneath  its  shows  and  osten. 
tation,  and  estimate  its  purpose  and  value.  He  felt  contempt  for  igno- 
rance and  detested  bad  manners,  and  neither  pretense  nor  display  could 
conceal  them  from  him  or  shield  them  from  the  shafts  of  his  ridicule. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  thought  that  simplicity  of  life  imparted  dignity 
to  character  and  enhanced  the  effect  of  greatness. 

It  lias  already  been  observed  that  the  fundamental  principle  of  Dr. 
Wharton's  system  of  thought  was  liberty.  He  advocated  this  princi- 
ple as  the  beneficent  source  of  all  true  progress.  He  believed  in  free 
thought,  free  government,  and  free  seas.  His  views  on  all  these  sub- 
jects are  fully  expounded  in  his  ^'Commentaries  on  Law."  In  law, as 
governing  individual  action,  he  belonged  to  what  he  terms  the  progress- 
ive division  of  the  historical  school,  "  holding  that  the  law  of  a  nation 
is  the  product  of  its  conscience  and  need  at  each  particular  era."  He 
was  equally  opposed  to  the  analytical  school,  of  which  Bentham  and 
Austin  are  the  chief  exponents,  which  looks  to  the  final  settlement  of 
law  by  a  code  founded  upon  the  doctrines  of  utility,  and  to  the  theo- 
cratic school,  which  claims  for  its  rules ^'wre  divino  sanction.  In  opposi- 
tion to  these  schools  he  accepted  the  arguments  of  Hooker  in  his  great 
work  on  "  Ecclesiastical  Polity."  This  work,  as  Dr.  Wharton  observed, 
is  unfortunately  chiefly  known  by  a  single  passage  containing  a  sonor- 
ous eulogium  on  law,    Almost  the  only  point  on  which  he  agreed  with 


A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON.        XXI 

Austin  was  in  thinking  that  this  passage  is  somewhat  rhetorical.  Dr. 
Wharton  was  accustomed  to  say  that  it  was  the  least  valuable  sen- 
tence in  the  wouderful  production  in  which  it  is  found.  According  to 
Hooker,  divine  law,  when  applied  to  men  in  their  mutable  relations,  and 
not  definitive  of  dogmatic  theology,  is  also  mutable.  Mu(;h  more  so, 
then,  must  this  be  tiue  of  human  law,  which  is  necessarily  formulated 
for  the  government  of  men  under  particular  conditions,  lleferring  in 
Lis  ''Commentaries  on  Law"  to  Hooker's  argument  against  the  theo- 
cratic views  of  the  extreme  Puritans,  Dr.  Wharton  says :  "  Two  points 
were  taken  in  the  reply  of  this  illustrious  thinker,  i)oints  equally  fatal 
to  any  system  of  absolute  law  :  (a)  Eeason  and  revelation,  lie  main- 
tained, including  in  revelation  whatever  law  claims  jure  divino  sauGtiou, 
have  coordinate  authority  ;  reason  has  to  verify  the  credentials  of  re\"- 
elation,  then  to  define  its  meaning,  then  to  determine  its  applicability. 
{b)  Whatever  concerns  man  in  his  mutable  relations  must  of  itself  be 
mutable ;  the  boat  tosses  with  the  wave  on  >vhich  it  reposes,  the  plas- 
ter takes  the  mold  of  the  face  on  which  it  is  impressed."  These  views, 
which  are  i^racticable  only  when  reason  is  left  free,  Dr.  Wharton  fully 
adopted. 

But  in  order  that  men  may  be  able  to  work  out  their  destiny  in 
accordance  with  the  dictates  of  reason  there  must  be  free  government. 
On  this  ground  Dr.  W^harton  advocated  the  widest  liberty  of  individual 
action  compatible  with  social  order.  Law  must,  he  held,  in  order  to  be 
effective,  be  the  emanation  of  the  conscience  and  needs  of  the  people; 
but  he  also  maintained  that  it  should  impose  as  little  restraint  as  possi- 
ble upon  the  freedom  of  action  of  the  individual.  He  was  a  disciple  of 
Jefferson,  and  fully  accepted  the  doctrine  of  laissez  /aire.  He  rejected 
the  notion  that  a  majority  of  the  people,  because  they  possess  the  power 
to  rule,  have  also  the  right  to  mold  the  opinions,  and  form  and  regulate 
the  lives  of  the  rest  of  the  community. 

In  international  law  Dr.  Wharton  was  a  strenuous  advocate  of  liberal 
principles,  and  in  his  exposition  of  the  policy  of  the  United  States  he 
laid  especial  stress  upon  the  importance  of  preserving  the  rights  of 
neutrals.  Whenever  he  found  a  decision  either  of  the  executive  or  of 
the  judiciary  which  seemed  to  him  to  be  unduly  restrictive  of  those 
rights  he  never  fiiiled  to  combat  it.  There  was  one  case  in  particular, 
arising  out  of  the  civil  war  in  the  United  States,  whose  authority  he 
never  neglected  an  opportunity  to  controvert.  This  was  the  case  of  the 
Sprinfjbol',  in  which  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  condemned 
a  cargo  bound  for  a  neutral  (British)  i)ortou  the  ground  that  it  was 
intended  to  be  transshipped  at  that  port  and  forwarded  on  another  ves- 
sel to  a  port  then  under  blockade.  His  most  thorough  and  exhaustive 
discussion  of  this  case  is  found  in  the  "International  Law  Digest." 
The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  not  having  been  accepted  by  the 
British  Government  as  being  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  inter- 
national law,  it  was  brought  for  examination  before  the  British- Ameri- 


XXII       A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

can  Claims  Commission,  organized  under  the  treaty  of  Wasbington. 
That  tribunal  affirmed  the  correctness  of  the  Supreme  Court's  decision, 
notwithstanding  the  able  and  convincing  arguments  against  it.  Among 
these  Dr.  Wharton  was  wont  to  refer  with  especial  admiration  to  that 
submitted  to  the  Commission  by  his  lifelong  friend  Mr.  Evarts,  an 
argument  full  of  learning  and  logic,  and  well  worthy  the  study  of  any- 
one who  desires  to  comprehend  the  principles  involved. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  the  last  published  expression  of  Dr. 
Wliarton's  views  on  law  and  government  should  have  contained  a  pro- 
test against  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  and  accepted 
by  the  Commission  in  the  case  of  the  Sprinphol'.  In  December,  1888, 
the  editor  of  ''The  Independent"  addressed  a  letter  to  a  number  of 
eminent  men,  requesting  suggestions  as  to  wliat  changes  were  needed 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  order  to  bring  it  "  into  ch)ser 
sympathy  with  the  present  status  of  political  thought."  Dr.  Wharton 
was  one  of  the  persons  thus  addressed,  and  his  reply  was  published, 
under  the  title  of  "  Patches  on  the  Constitution,"  only  a  little  more 
than  a  month  before  his  death.  It  contains  the  most  comprehensive 
expression  to  be  found  in  so  small  a  comi:)ass  of  his  opinions  on  law,  pol- 
itics, and  government,  and  is  in  every  respect  so  characteristic,  both  in 
substance  and  in  style,  that  with  the  consent  of  the  editor  of  "The 
Independent"  it  is  republished  as  an  appendix  to  this  sketch. 

It  is  proper  that  something  should  be  said  in  regard  to  Dr.  Wharton's 
style.  In  a  review  of  his  "  Commentary  on  the  Law  of  Contracts"  a 
writer  in  the  English  "  Law  Times"  said  : 

In  certain  aspects  this  is  a  pecnhar  law  book.  It  is  written  with  more  attention 
to  reasonable  elegance  of  style  than  legal  writers  nsnally  practise.  *  *  *  Full  of 
learning  and  research,  it  is  not  wearisome  fo  read.  Matter  is  never  made  the  slave 
of  form;  but,  at  the  same  time,  the  author  avoids  those  awkward  and  by  no  means 
perspicuous  attempts  at  expression,  such  as  "and  which,"  or  "  that  that,"  which 
disfigure  our  text-books  and  judgments.  Lastly,  in  incidental  sentences  it  will  be 
found  that,  in  estimating  the  value  of  principles,  the  author  employs  a  native  orig- 
inality guided  rather  than  expelled  T)y  the  pro<?ess  of  legal  training. 

It  is  a  distinctive  feature  of  Dr.  Wharton's  books  that,  in  addition 
to  their  convenience  and  authority  as  works  of  reference,  they  possess 
a  peculiar  literary  charm.  This  is  due  in  large  measure  to  the  freshness 
of  his  thought  and  the  force  and  vivacity  of  his  forms  of  expression. 
His  tendenc}^  was  to  be  diffuse  rather  than  concise.  He  wrote  with 
such  facility,  and  could  so  easily  command  words  in  which  to  convey 
his  thoughts,  that  he  was  little  given  to  condensation  ;  but  with  all  the 
learning  which  his  works  display  he  never  gives  the  reader  the  im- 
pression that  his  erudition  was  a  burden  to  him.  He  read  understand- 
inglj^,  and  wrote  with  a  view  to  elucidate  the  propositions  which  he 
wished  to  establish.  He  never  consciously  or  unconsciously  sought  to 
impress  his  views  by  the  employment  of  that  vague  and  nebulous  style 
of  argument  by  which  the  reader  is  sometimes  led  to  mistake  mysterious 
and  intangible  generalizations  for  i)rofundity  of  thought.     If  he  ever 


A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON.       XXIII 

iudiilgecl  iu  speculations  wliicli  could  not  be  reduced  to  a  definite  state- 
ment, lie  never  attempted  to  utter  tbem.  He  often  referred  in  a  humor- 
ous strain  to  the  mystical  productions  of  writers  whose  ideas,  he  said, 
seemed  to  have  been  absorbed  by  an  *^  inverted  perspiration."  Dr. 
Wharton  always  endeavored  to  be  perspicuous.  Occasionally  his 
sentences  are  somewhat  involved  and  complex  in  construction,  but  they 
are  never  obscure.  They  give  the  impression  of  havinfj  been  thrown 
out  fresh  from  the  writer's  mind  in  the  vividness  and  energy  of  rapid 
composition.  He  was  much  glv^en  to  the  employ- ment  of  a  colloquial 
or  dramatic  form  of  expression,  in  which  the  argument  is  put  into  the 
mouth  of  a  person  who  is  supposed  to  be  speaking  iu  an  inartificial  and 
familiar  way  upon  the  proposition  under  discussion.  Another  and  con- 
stant quality  of  Dr.  Wharton's  style  is  the  subdivision  of  his  argument 
into  separate  parts,  each  one  of  which  is  pursued  and  exhausted  by 
itself.  The  reasons  advanced  in  each  part  are  generally  stated  in  the 
same  distinctive  and  orderly  way.  This  method  he  always  employed 
in  his  books,  and  the  habit  clung  to  him  even  in  his  briefer  discussions 
and  in  his  purely  historical  writings.  This  analytical  method  of  state- 
ment imparted  clearness  as  well  as  a  certain  didactic  quality  to  his 
style.  It  was  by  the  employment  of  a  multitude  of  reasons,  rather  than 
by  the  selection  and  repetition  of  a  single  and  o\^erwhelming  argument, 
that  he  sought  to  establish  his  proposition.  It  was  the  quick  succession 
of  blows,  rather  than  the  single  ponderous  shock,  that  overcame  the 
antagonist. 

It  is  often  the  fate  of  writers  who  contribute  in  no  small  decree  to 
mold  opinion  to  be  little  known  except  in  their  books.  The  life  of  an 
industrious  writer  of  treatises  on  law  is  necessarily  spent  more  or  less 
in  seclusion.  He  must  have  time  not  only  for  thought,  but  also  for  re- 
search. Unlike  the  author  of  descriptions  of  life  and  manners,  who 
acquires  his  knowledge  by  contact  with  men,  the  writer  on  law  must 
glean  the  books  for  his  materials.  His  writings  have  little  circulation 
among  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  his  labors  do  not  reach  the  poi)ular 
imagination  ;  hence  his  personality'  is  generally  little  inquired  about 
and  little  known.  Dr.  Wharton,  in  large  measure,  escaped  this  fate. 
He  was  fond  of  social  intercourse.  He  especially  delighted  in  the 
society  of  young  men,  whose  hopeful  views  and  unchilled  enthusiasm 
found  a  ready  response  in  his  own  ardent  and  progressive  temper.  In 
mind  and  in  thought  he  never  grew  old.  In  his  studies  and  in  his 
writings  he  possessed  all  the  energy  and  vivacity  of  youth.  These 
traits  he  carried  with  him  into  social  life.  Wherever  a  few  persons 
were  gathered  together  for  social  diversion,  and  Dr.  Wharton  made 
one  of  them,  he  was  the  life  of  the  company.  He  led  in  the  conversa- 
tion, and  was  always  sparkling,  suggestive,  and  full  of  humor.  He 
was  a  master  of  playful  irony.  It  required  a  quick  and  sympathetic 
perception  to  follow  and  appreciate  him,  but  even  those  who  could 
thoroughly  do  neither  could  not  fail  to  catch  the  contagion  of  his  lively 
and  spirited  manner.     At  such  times  his  countenance  was  peculiarly 


XXI\^       A  BRIEF  SKETCfl  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

bright  and  expressive,  ajicl  liis  eyes  gave  anticipatory  flashes  of  the 
thoughts  he  was  about  to  utter.  His  humor  was  of  a  rare  quality,  and 
was  turbulent  and  irrepressible.  There  were  few  subjects  so  serious 
that  he  could  not  perceive  in  them  a  humorous  aspect.  One  would 
scarcely  look  for  such  things  in  a  work  on  criminal  law ;  but  in  his 
treatises  on  that  subject  we  find,  under  the  title  of  "Diversity  of 
Knowledge  among  Judges,"  a  disquisition  on  the  intoxicant  quality  of 
liquors,  in  which  the  cases  and  decisions  are  discussed  both  upon  prin- 
ciple and  upon  authority,  but  with  a  liveliness  and  humorousuess  of 
manner  quite  unexpected  and  entertaining.  In  the  "  International  Law 
Digest"  we  find  entertainment  and  instruction  peculiarly  combined  in 
the  chapter  on  official  and  social  intercourse  of  diplomatic  agents. 
The  humorous  passages  found  in  his  serious  writings  very  well  illus- 
trate Dr.  Wliar ton's  manner  in  general  conversation,  and  show  the 
ease  with  which  he  could  apprehend  and  state  arguments. 

Early  in  1839  Dr.  Wharton's  physical  powers  began  perceptibly  to 
fail.  The  affection  of  the  throat  with  which  he  had  for  a  long  time 
been  troubled  to  the  serious  impairment  of  his  voice,  assumed  an 
aggravated  form,  rendering  his  breathing  labored  and  difficult  and  the 
effort  to  speak  injurious.  He  was  fully  conscious  of  the  critical  features 
of  his  condition  ;  but  of  all  tliose  who  were  concerned  in  his  welfare  he 
himself  exhibited  the  least  anxiety.  He  was  always  reticent  as  to  his 
feelings,  and  rarely  referred  to  the  personal  incidents  of  his  life;  but 
he  was,  besides,  not  afraid  to  look:  to  the  end.  By  the  1st  of  February 
his  malady  had  made  such  rapid  progress  that  it  was  thought  advisable 
that  he  should  go  to  Philadelphia  in  order  that  he  might  undergo  ex- 
amination at  the  hands  of  consulting  specialists.  On  the  morning  of 
the  day  on  which  he  undertook  the  journey  he  came  to  his  office  as 
usual,  in  order  to  look  over  his  correspondence  and  dispose  of  any 
business  that  might  require  attention.  Although  fully  aware  of  his 
danger,  he  exhibited  no  sign  of  despondency,  but  rather  a  quiet  deter- 
mination to  face  the  worst  that  might  come  without  faltering.  The 
result  of  the  consultation  held  in  Philadelphia  was  communicated  to 
the  writer  in  a  letter  so  illustrative  of  the  temper  and  disposition  of  the 
sufferer  that  it  is  reproduced  in  this  place  : 

Philadelphia,  February  4,  1889. 
Dear  Mr.  Moore:  I  have  been  undergoiuf^  a  tliorough  examination  by  a  con- 
sulting committee  of  specialists  to-day,  and  tbcy  coincide  in  saying  that  there  are 
critical  featnres  in  my  case  which  can  only  be  met  by  my  being  confined  to  my  house 
and  chamber  for  two  weeks  under  a  specitic  treatment.  Now,  as  the  disease  is  purely 
local,  it  will  greatly  amuse  me  if  yon  Avill  send,  as  usual,  any  papers  which  I  can 
report  upon.  I  will  consider  this  a  particular  favor.  I  will  also  be  very  glad  to  see 
you,  but  I  am  positively  ordered  not  to  say  a  word,  so  do  not  come  unless  there  is 
something  you  can  explain  to  me  better  by  talking  than  writing.  Now  be  sure  to 
send  to  mo  any  questions  that  come  up,  jn^t  as  you  did  before.  Please  show  this 
note  to  Mr.  Bayard,  with  my  love.  I  write  this  in  Philadelphia,  expecting  to  return 
to-night. 

Ever  yours, 

F.  W. 


A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON        XXV 

Followiag  this  letter  was  a  postscript,  requesting  that  a  gentlemau 
who  was  assisting  him  iu  the  correctiou  of  some  proof  slieets  would  call 
upon  him  at  his  house  immediately  after  his  arriv^alfrom  Philadelphia. 

After  his  return  from  Philadelphia  Dr.  Wharton  never  left  his 
chamber.  The  treatment  under  which^he  was  placed  required  close 
confinement  and  absolute  abstention  from  attempts  to  speak.  For  a 
time  it  seemed  to  afford  relief,  and  he  was  encouraged  to  hope  that  he 
might  be  out  again.  It  had  been  suggested  that  it  might  be  necessary 
to  perform  a  surgical  operation,  and  the  prospect  that  this  might  be 
avoided  tended  to  dissipate  his  apprehensions.  On  the  9th  of  Febru- 
ary Dr.  Wharton  wrote  as  follows  : 

Dear  Mr.  Moore  :  Please  seud  dowu  to  my  carriage  a  Congressional  Register, 
giving  a  list  of  congressmen  and  our  foreign  consuls;  also  t^venty  or  thirty  sheets 
of  foolscap  Department  paper ;  also  my  mail,  and  any  tiling  else  yon  may  have  for 
me.  I  am  getting  decidedly  better.  The  Salisbury-Sackville  paper  is  excellent. 
The  assumption  that  it  is  for  England  to  determine  bow  far  she  will  interfere  in  oar 
politics,  and  that  by  international  law  she  is  to  be  the  exclusive  arbiter  of  this,  is 
intolerable. 

My  lips  are  sealed,  but  I  can  listen,  read,  and  write  all  the  better. 

The  document  referred  to  as  the  "  Salisbury-Sackville  paper  "  was 
the  communication  which  Mr.  Bayard,  on  January  30,  1889,  addressed 
to  Mr.  Phelps,  United  States  Minister  at  London,  in  reply  to  the  note 
of  Lord  Salisbury  in  the  Sackville  case,  iu  which  his  Lordship  assumed 
the  position  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  instead  of  dis- 
missing Lord  Sackville  from  the  post  of  British  Minister  at  Washing- 
ton, was  bound  to  submit  the  complaints  against  him  to  the  judgment 
of  his  Government,  in  order  that  it  might  decide  whether  they  were  of 
such  a  character  as  to  require  his  remov^al.  Dr.  Wharton's  brief  note 
discloses  the  activity  with  which  he  continued  to  work ;  and  his  obser- 
vations on  the  Sackville  case  show  that  his  interest  in  current  public 
questions  had  not  abated,  and  that  he  was  still  capable  of  expressing 
his  views  with  vigor  and  clearness. 

About  the  middle  of  February  the  symptoms  of  Dr.  Wharton's  dis- 
ease became  more  unfavorable.  He  began  to  experience  greater  diffi- 
culty in  respiration,  and  the  necessity  of  a  surgical  operjition  again  be- 
came imminent.  The  tone  of  his  communications  lost  its  hopefulness, 
but  he  continued  steadily  at  work,  chiefly  upon  the  ^'  Diplomatic  Cor- 
respondence of  the  lievolution."  In  a  little  book  entitled  the  '-Silence 
of  Scripture,"  published  in  1807,  when  he  was  rector  of  St.  Paul's 
Church,  in  Brookline,  Mass.,  he  uttered  the  following  thought :  "  The 
oars  of  Providence  are  muffled.  We  know  not  our  hourj  and  hence 
we  are  to  labor  as  if  we  were  to  live  for  ever,  and  trust  as  if  we  were 
to  die  to  night.''  As  we  look  upon  his  last  days,  and  observe  the  unos- 
tentatious heroism  of  his  conduct,  those  words,  spoken  twenty  years 
before,  seem  prophetic  of  his  end.  A  few  days  i)rior  to  his  decease  the 
dreaded  operation  was  performed  in  order  to  save  him  from  strangula- 
tion; but,  while  the  shock   weakened  his  vital  forces,  he  uttered  no 


XXVI       A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

complaint  and  gave  no  sign  of  mental  distress.  He  continued  at  work 
on  some  proofs  of  tiie  present  publication,  and  bis  corrections  betray 
no  evidence  of  disturbance  of  thought.  He  was  laboring  as  if  he  were 
"  to  live  for  ever,"  and  trusting  as  if  he  were  ^'  to  die  to-night."  From 
the  calmness  of  his  demeanor  one  might  suppose  that  he  had  long  lived 
in  the  presence  of  death  and  had  ceased  to  dread  its  near  approach. 
The  lofty  purx)Ose,  the  dauntless  resolution,  and  the  abiding  faith  which 
had  borne  him  through  the  vicissitudes  of  a  life  of  unremitting  effort 
were  never  shown  with  greater  clearness  than  in  these  last  moments. 
In  the  i)resence  of  death  the  secret  of  his  life  was  revealed. 

Late  at  night  on  the  20th  of  February,  1889,  Dr.  Wharton  made  the 
first  confession  of  physical  weakness  which  he  uttered  during  his  ill- 
ness. He  asked  for  nourishment  and  expressed  a  desire  for  repose. 
Then  in  brief  sentences,  written  on  slips  of  paper— for  he  could  not 
speak — he  bade  good  night  to  those  who  were  watching  by  his  bed- 
side and  begged  them  to  retire  to  rest.  Soon  after  midnight  on  the 
following  morning,  as  he  lay  apparently  asleep,  he  was  observed  to 
turn  his  head.  He  gave  no  sign  of  anguish,  but  at  that  moment  he 
ceased  to  breathe. 

On  the  reception  of  the  news  of  his  death  the  Secretary  of  State 
issued  the  following  order  : 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  Fchniary  21,  1889. 

Dr.  Francis  Wharton,  the  Solicitor  of  this  Department,  died  early  this  raoruing  in 
this  city,  and  his  faneral  ceremonies  will  take  place  on  Saturday  next,  the  23d 
instant,  at  2  o'clock  p.  ra.,  at  his  late  residence,  No.  2013  Hillyer  Place. 

Such  officers  of  this  Department  as  may  desire  to  attend  the  funeral  will  not  be 
required  to  be  present  at  the  Department  after  the  hour  of  1  p.  m.  on  that  day. 

In  makiug  this  auuouncement  the  Secretary  of  State  desires  also  to  place  upon  tlie 
files  of  the  Department  a  mark  of  recognition  of  the  public  loss  sustained  by  the 
death  of  Dr.  Wharton,  whoso  eminence  as  a  jurist  and  remarkable  attainments  as  a 
scholar  are  attested  by  liis  writings,  and  have  enrolled  his  name  among  the  most 
renowned  publicists  of  our  time. 

His  books  upon  the  law  remain  a  monument  to  his  sound  learning,  wide  research, 
and  untiring  industry. 

Within  the  cirrlo  of  those  permitted  to  enjoy  his  personal    companionship  his 

memory  will  be  cherished  as  a  beloved  associate,   an  honorable  gentleman,  and  a 

sincere  Christian. 

T.  F.  Bayard. 

The  funeral  of  Dr.  Wharton  took  place  on  the  23d  of  February,  and 
was  attended  by  a  large  number  of  his  friends.  He  was  buried  in 
Rock  Greek  Cemeterj^,  near  the  city  of  Washington.  He  left  to  survive 
him  a  widow  and  two  daughters.  To  attempt  to  describe  the  life  of  a 
man  in  the  nearest  and  tenderest  of  social  relations  always  savors  of 
desecration.  From  these  no  hand  should  seek  to  remove  the  veil  with 
which  all  sensitive  natures  wish  to  shield  their  domestic  life  from  the 
eye  of  prurient  curiosity.  The  remembrance  of  kindness,  sympathy, 
and  devotion  is  the  appropriate  treasure  of  those  upon  whom  they  are 
bestowed. 


^'PATCHES      ON    THE    CONSTITUTION.  XXVII 

It  is  ill  keeping  with  Dr.  Wharton's  life  that  no  studied  tribute  to 
his  character  shonUl  follow  the  account  of  his  death  and  burial.  As 
with  him  the  end  of  existence  was  the  end  of  labor,  so  we  may  permit 
the  simple  recital  of  what  he  accomplished  to  stand  as  his  most  fitting 
eulogy. 

October  10,  1801. 


[The  Independent,  January  10,  1889.] 

"PATCHES"   ON  THE  CONSTITUTION. 
By  Francis  Wiiartox,  LL.  D. 

Swift,  in  the  "  Tale  of  a  Tub,"  likened  the  Christian  record  to  three 
coats  which  a  father  left  to  his  three  sons  with  these  injunctions: 
^'Now  you  are  to  understand  that  these  coats  have  two  virtues  con- 
tained in  them ;  o)ie  is,  ivith  good  wearing  they  will  last  you  fresh  and 
sound  as  long  as  you  live  ;  the  other  is,  that  they  toill  grow  in  the  same 
2)roportion  as  your  bodies,  lengthening  and  icidening  of  themselves  so  as  to 
always  fity  It  so  happened,  however,  that  the  oldest  of  the  sons,  con- 
ceiving that  the  control  of  the  coats  belonged  to  him,  proceeded 
to  cover  them  witli  patches  of  whatever  finery  the  fashion  of  each 
succeeding  season  might  make  popular,  destroying  thereby  not 
merel}"  the  excellence  of  their  appearance,  but  their  durability  and 
elasticity.  They  could  not  be  durable  if  they  should  have  their  sub- 
stance subjected  to  the  fastening  on  and  then  the  tearing  off  of  succes- 
siv^e  layers  of  stuff.  They  could  not  be  elastic,  so  as  to  grow  with  the 
body  of  the  wearer,  if  they  were  stiffened  and  clogged  by  these  heavy 
superincumbent  brocades. 

Swift's  coat,  as  he  thus  describes  it,  is  a  symbol  not  merely  of  the 
scriptural  records,  but  of  all  systems  which  are  the  products  of  perma- 
nent natural  and  social  conditions.  If  they  are  such  products,  they 
represent  in  simplicity  these  conditions,  lasting  as  long  as  they  last, 
growing  as  they  grow,  and  so  enduring  and  adapting  themselves 
because  of  their  very  simplicity.  Chief  among  systems  of  this  charac- 
ter is  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  is  the  emanation  of 
such  conditions  of  tlie  people  of  the  United  States  as  are  permanent. 
It  provides  for  the  coexistence  of  Federal  and  State  sovereignties.  It 
provides  for  the  coordination  of  executive,  judiciary,  and  legislature. 
It  gives  the  National  Government,  it  gives  each  department  of  that 
Government,  certain  clearly  defined  powers,  reserving  to  States  and 
people  all  powers  which  are  not  so  assigned.  In  this  way  it  provides, 
in  case  it  should  not  be  overlaid  with  a  superstructure  of  artificial  con- 
struction, impairing  at  once  its  durability  and  its  elasticity,  a  system 
of  government  which,  instead  of  being  swept  away  b}'  new  social  or 


XXVIII       A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

economical  developments,  receives  sucli  developments  under  its  own 
shelter  as  part  of  a  harmonious  and  yet  progressive  whole. 

But  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  durable  and  flexible  as  it 
is  itself,  has  had  its  durability  threatened  and  its  elasticity  diminished 
by  factors  not  unlike  those  which  Swift  allegorized  in  the  "Tale  of  a 
Tub."  The  most  potent  and  mischievous  of  these  factors  was  the  ter- 
roristic hyper  conservatism  called  forth  by  the  French  Revolution. 
Among'  men  of  conservative  tendencies,  among  men  who  distrusted 
democracy  on  principle,  there  was  a  strong  feeling  that  a  general 
assault  on  vested  rights  was  at  hand,  and  that  they  must  protect  these 
rights  by  all  available  means. 

In  England,  the  school  that  was  thus  generated  was  led  by  Castle- 
reagh,  by  Perceval,  by  Eldon,  followed  by  the  mass  of  the  aristocracy 
trembling  for  their  privileges,  and  by  the  great  body  of  squires  and 
country  gentlemen  who  were  incensed  at  whatever  might  disturb  their 
bovine  mastery  of  their  own  particular  fields.  By  these  classes  both 
Houses  of  Parliament  were  dominated. 

The  accession  to  power  in  1801  of  the  Democratic  party  prevented 
the  parallel  reaction  which  had  begun  in  America  from  affecting  the 
executive  and  legislative  departments.  But  extreme  conservatives 
despaired  of  the  capacity  of  the  Constitution  as  a  barrier  to  resist  the 
torrent  of  Jacobinism  by  which  they  thought  civilization,  religion, 
morality  threatened.  By  Hamilton  the  fabric  was  spoken  of  as  "frail 
and  worthless;"  bj^  Gouverneur  Morris  its  failure  was  lamented,  but 
he  thought  could  scarcely  be  averted.  All  that  could  be  done  would  be 
to  prop  it  up  by  buttresses  and  strengthen  it  by  exterior  walls,  which 
might  make  it  a  fortress  in  which  privileges  could  be  protected,  instead 
of  a  temple  in  which  liberty  was  to  reign  by  maintaining  the  full  and 
harmonious  play  of  State  and  Federal  rights,  and  by  securing  to  the 
people  the  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  business  facilities  and  of  political 
privileges  within  the  respective  orbits  of  state  and  of  nation. 

There  was  one  great  and  courageous  statesman  and  judge,  however, 
who  shared  the  convictions  of  Hamilton  and  Morris  without  sharing 
their  despair,  and  who,  in  his  x>osition  as  chief  justice  of  the  United 
States  from  1801  to  1835,  aided  by  an  unbroken  ascendency  over  his 
associates,  was  able  to  impose  on  the  Constitution  constructions  which 
were  designed  to  protect  existing  institutions  and  to  repel  Jacobinical 
assaults,  but  which  tend  to  deprive  it  of  much  of  that  elasticity  and 
comprehensiveness  on  which  its  durability  as  well  as  its  utility  depend. 

Marshall's  great  moral  and  intellectual  gifts,  as  well  as  his  capacity  as 
a  chief  of  conservatism  in  its  then  supreme  conflict  with  liberalism  can 
be  best  measured  by  comparing  him  with  Eldon,  who  led  the  same 
forces  in  England.  Eldon  had  nothing  to  do  with  politics  in  his  court, 
which,  as  an  equity  tribunal,  excluded  such  considerations;  but  he 
had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  them  in  the  cabinet,  in  which,  as  Lord 
Chancellor,  he  held  a  leading  position.     Marshall  had  nothing  to  do 


"patches"    on    the    constitution  XXIX 

with  politics  off  the  bench,  but  oq  the  bench  he  dealt  with  them  in  the 
broadest  and  most  effective  way,  as  a  large  part  of  the  business  of  his 
court  consisted  in  settling  questions  of  high  constitutional  law.  Both 
were  men  of  great  political  courage ;  yet  Eldon,  while  i)rompt  and  bold 
in  the  cabinet,  was  singularly  hesitating  and  procrastinating  on  the 
bench,  while  Marshall,  when  in  court,  never  doubted  his  conclusions, 
announcing  them  promptly  and  emphatically,  and  with  a  clearness  and 
simi^licity  in  singular  contrast  with  the  turgidity  and  involution  of 
Eldon's  style.  Both  were  consummate  managers  of  men,  but  Eldon's 
management  was  that  of  the  supple  courtier,  Marshall's  that  of  the 
majestic  chief.  Eldon  was  a  tactician,  maneuvering  for  present  van- 
tage ground  j  Marshall  a  strategist,  planning  campaigns  whose  field 
should  be  an  empire  and  whose  duration  an  era.  Eldon's  powers  were 
weakened  by  his  jobbery,  his  greed,  his  avarice;  Marshall's  grandeur 
was  enhanced  by  his  homely  simplicity  of  life,  his  scorn  of  jobbery,  his 
indifference  to  wealth,  showing  in  his  own  person  how  little  accumu- 
lated hoards  of  money  have  to  do  with  greatness  of  the  highest  type. 
Both  were  great  lawyers  ;  but  while  Eldon  was  far  more  proficient  in 
the  delicate  and  intricate  departments  of  equity,  Marshall  surpassed 
him  in  the  application  of  common  sense  to  the  molding  of  common  law. 
Eldon's  court  of  chancery,  as  such,  is  now  swept  away,  though  many 
of  the  cardinal  doctrines  laid  down  by  him  in  equity  are  accepted  as 
part  of  the  dominant  law  of  England  j  and  one  of  the  reasons  why  his 
court,  as  such,  fell  under  the  ban  was  the  discredit  cast  on  it  by  his 
procrastination,  his  irresolution,  and  the  enormous  expense  his  system 
of  patronage  imposed  on  suitors.  Marshall's  court  is  now  the  strongest 
and  most  influential  tribunal  in  the  world;  and  this  is,  in  a  large  meas- 
ure, due  to  the  matchless  dignity  he  imparted  to  it,  and  the  strong, 
plain,  ready  sense  which  his  example  set  for  its  judgments.  And  in 
their  political  achievements  the  contrast  is  still  more  marked.  The 
result  of  Eldon's  political  labors — the  black  acts,  the  repressive  and 
bloody  legislation  as  a  whole,  which  his  resolute  voice  had  so  large  a 
part  in  forcing  through — are  now  utterly  vanished.  But  the  construc- 
tions Marshall  imposed  on  the  Constitution  still  remain  in  greater  or 
less  vigor.  It  has  been  a  great  misfortune  for  the  country  that  some  of 
these  constructions  have  served,  like  the  tags  and  i)atches  on  Swift's 
coat,  to  impair  seriously  the  comprehensive  simplicity  and  the  paucity 
of  limitation  which  adapt  that  great  document,  as  it  stands  in  the 
original  text,  to  each  stage  of  business  or  economical  developnient  as 
it  arrives.  Some  of  the  more  damaging  of  the  restrictive  "patches" 
thus  imposed  I  now  proceed  to  consider. 

1.  Purchase  and  sale  of  negotiable  paper,  loaning  money  on  such 
paper  or  on  other  assets,  purchase  of  goods  to  meet  advances  at  home 
or  abroad,  are  matters  which  can  be  best  arranged  and  adjusted  by  the 
competition  of  private  interests,  and  which  are,  therefore,  not  within 
the  scope  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  can  not  be 


XXX       A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON 

brouglit  within  its  operation  without  destroying  that  very  capacity  of 
adaptation  to  successive  epochs  which  gives  it  permanency  and  com- 
prehensiveness. In  May,  1781,  as  a  war  measure — the  war  being  then 
at  its  height  and  the  Treasury  insolvent — Congress  chartered  the  first 
national  bank,  under  the  title  of  the  Bank  of  IS'orth  America.  In  Feb- 
ruary, 1791,  when  the  country  had  scarcely  emerged  from  the  turmoil 
of  the  war,  when  collisions  with  France  and  with  Spain  were  threatened, 
and  when  Britain  still  refused  to  fulfill  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of 
peace,  a  charter  was  granted  to  the  first  Bank  of  the  United  States, 
with  power  to  discount  commercial  paper  and  to  issue  exchange  on 
deposits  of  assets.  In  February,  1810,  a  charter  to  the  same  effect  was 
again  granted,  as  a  measure  of  Government  relief,  in  the  suspension  of 
banking  operations  which  the  war  of  1812  precipitated.  This  charter, 
if  sustainable  at  all,  was  sustainable,  as  were  those  of  1781  and  1791, 
on  the  grouud  that  a  Government  bank  was  necessary  to  restore  to  its 
normal  state  the  currency  which  the  prior  war  had  deranged.  But  in 
February,  1819,  when  credit  was  restored,  trade  returned  to  its  natural 
channel,  and  the  country  entering  upon  a  full  course  of  enterprise  call- 
ing for  unfettered  business  activity,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  Chief  Justice  Marshall  delivering  the  opinion,  held  that,  not  as 
a  war  measure,  but  as  a  permanent  system  of  government,  Congress 
could  constitutionally  put  in  operation  a  bank  whose  functions  would 
include  the  buying  and  selling  of  commercial  paper  and  the  issuing  of 
exchange  on  deposits  of  all  kinds,  speculative  as  well  as  actual.  Of 
this  construction  that  by  which,  many  years  afterwards,  it  was  held 
within  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  force  i)urchasers  of  goods 
to  take  irredeemable  paper  money  in  payment,  and  even  to  turn  gold 
contracts  into  paper  contracts,  was  a  natural  outcome. 

2.  The  determination  to  protect  existing  institutions  from  the  sup- 
posed enmity  of  democracy,  culminated  in  the  Dartmouth  College  case, 
decided  in  the  same  term  as  that  which  affirmed  the  constitutionality 
of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  Dartmouth  College  was  then  exist- 
ing under  a  royal  charter,  which  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire 
undertook  to  amend.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that  such  amendment 
was  inoperative,  because  a  college  corporation  is  a  "  private"  and  not 
a  "public"  corporation,  and  because  charters  of  private  corporations 
are  contracts,  which,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  a 
State  can  not  lawfully  imi)air.  The  reasoning  of  the  court  brought  not 
merely  colleges,  but  banks,  insurance  companies,  and  common  carriers, 
when  incorporated,  under  the  head  of  "private"  corporations,  so  that 
privileges  and  immunities  and  monopolies  once  granted  to  thein  could 
not  be  withdrawn.  If  that  decision  had  remained  operative,  a  charter 
giving  a  stage  corporation  the  exclusive  perpetual  right  to  convey  pas- 
sengers from  i)oint  to  point  would  have  shut  out  any  other  carriers  or 
any  other  method  of  carriage  forever  from  the  route;  a  charter  empow- 
ering them  to  fix  their  own  rates  would  make  those  rates  unassailable ; 


*^ patches"    on    the    constitution.  XXXI 

a  charter  giviug  tlie  owners  of  a  particular  reservoir  the  exchisive  right 
to  supply  a  city  with  water  would  prevent  any  other  water  supply,  no 
matter  how  inadequate  such  a  reservoir  should  prove.  Had  this 
^^patch"  been  unalterably  worked  into  the  texture  of  the  Constitution, 
its  life  would  have  been  short.  "If  you  persist  in  your  supposed  con- 
scientious conviction  that  you  must  veto  all  bills  removing  religious 
tests,  your  majesty's  crown,"  so  the  Duke  of  Wellington  substantially 
told  George  lY,  "must  fall."  The  majesty  of  the  Constitution  would 
have  been  subjected  to  a  like  fate  if  it  was  held  to  contain  provisions 
which  made  perpetual  every  monopoly,  no  matter  how  odious,  that  had 
been  created  in  the  past. 

3.  By  the  law  of  nations,  as  construed  by  the  Continental  Congress, 
and  in  the  sense  in  which  the  term  was  used  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  freedom  of  the  sea  is  secured  to  neutral  merchant  ships 
with  certain  well-defined  restrictions.  They  can  not,  without  peril, 
after  notice,  enter  a  blockaded  belligerent  port,  and  they  are  liable  to 
confiscation  if  they  attempt  such  entrance.  They  are  subject  to  be 
searched  at  sea  for  contraband,  and  such  contraband  can  be  confiscated 
if  found  on  board;  but  the  term  contraband  is  limited  to  munitions 
of  war  destined  for  belligerent  use.  Outside  of  these  bounds  they  are 
entitled  to  traverse  the  high  seas  without  molestation,  and  they  can 
become  carriers  for  belligerents  and  for  belligerent  property,  the  rule 
being  that  free  ships  make  free  goods  Over  and  over  again  Congress 
during  the  Revolution,  affirmed  these  positions,  and  a  solemn  adhesion 
was  given  by  it  to  the  armed  neutrality,  which  adopted  them  as  the 
basis  of  its  existence.  It  was  with  no  slight  exultation  at  the  prospect 
of  prosperity  that  such  a  system  would  bring  to  American  shipping 
that  Franklin  expatiated  on  the  benignity  and  wisdom  of  a  policy  which 
discouraged  belligerency  and  encouraged  peace,  and  which  would  give 
tlie  hardy  seafaring  population  of  America  the  control  of  the  carrying 
trade  of  the  world. 

But  other  views  were  promulgated  by  England  when  engaged  in  her 
struggle  with  Napoleon.  Her  great  enemy  had  from  time  to  time  the 
mastery  of  the  continent  of  Europe ;  she  must  sink  unless  she  obtained 
the  undisputed  mastery  of  the  seas.  Then  there  emanated  from  her 
courts  a  series  of  judgments  greatly  extending  belligerent  privileges 
and  greatly  diminishing  neutral  rights.  Merely  constructive  blockades 
were  sanctioned,  and,  under  what  was  called  the  doctrine  of  continuous 
voyages,  it  was  held  that  if  goods  were  designed  (a  question  as  to 
which  prize  courts  leaned  naturally  against  neutrals)  for  blockade-run- 
ning, they  could  be  seized  at  any  point  on  the  road,  though  they  w^ere 
to  be  transshipped  at  an  intermediate  port.  Contraband  was  swollen 
so  as  to  include  whatever  was  of  value  to  the  belligerent  for  whose  use 
it  was  supposed  to  be  intended.  So  far  from  free  ships  making  free 
goods,  enemy's  goods  were  held  open  to  seizure  under  neutral  flags, 
and  neutral  ships  could  be  searched  for  them,  and  the  question  of  bellig- 


XXXII       A  BRIEF  SKETCH  OP  THE  LIFE  OF  FRANCIS  WHARTON. 

erent  ownership  was,  like  all  other  disputed  qiiestiouSj  to  be  left,  when 
the  seizure  was  by  a  British  cruiser,  to  a  British  prize  court,  the  fees  of 
whose  officers  depended  in  a  large  measure  on  making  good  the  capture, 
and  whose  prepossessions  were  all  in  favor  of  strengthening  belligerent 
power  in  favor  of  Britain,  then  in  a  struggle  almost  for  national  ex- 
istence. 

We  must  not  look  too  harshly  on  the  tendency  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  to  sustain,  though  sometimes  in  faltering  tones, 
those  modifications  of  the  law  of  nations  which  came  across  the  Atlantic 
under  the  great  name  of  Lord  Stowell,  clothed  in  the  fascinating  diction 
of  which  that  judge  was  a  master,  and  appealing  to  the  community  of 
feeling  which  made  Americans  as  well  as  Englishmen  look  with  aversion 
at  the  unscrupulous  ambition  of  Napoleon,  which  aimed  at  the  subjuga- 
tion of  all  civilization  to  his  own  rapacious  will.  England,  to  many 
minds,  seemed  the  only  bulwark  against  this  lawless  Csesarism  on  the 
one  side  and  an  equally  lawless  Jacobinism  on  the  other  side;  and 
much  as  we  may  be  amazed,  considering  what  went  before  and  what 
came  after,  at  the  devotion  shown  by  leading  Federalists  to  England 
in  those  dark  days,  we  must  be  content  to  acknowledge  that  this  devo- 
tion was  at  that  juncture  felt  by  some  of  the  purest  and  noblest  men 
our  country  has  ever  produced.  It  was  not  strange  then  that  our 
Supreme  Court  should  then  have  receded  from  the  revolutionary  doctrine 
of  free  seas,  and  should  have  in  a  measure  sustained  the  destructive 
views  introduced  by  English  courts  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  from 
destruction  British  maritime  supremacy,  and  with  it  the  cause  of  revo- 
lution itself.  Kor  was  it  strange  that  when  we  ourselves  became  bellig- 
erents we  should  accept  these  doctrines,  perilous  as  they  are  to  neutral 
maritime  rights,  as  settled  law.  But  it  is  ground  for  profound  grief  as 
well  as  amazement  that  as  late  as  December,  18G6,  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  in  the  famous  case  of  the  ^pringholi^  should  have 
held  that  it  was  good  ground  to  confiscate  the  cargo  of  a  neutral  mer- 
chant ship ;  that  the  ship,  at  the  time  of  search  and  seizure,  was  on 
the  way  to  an  intermediate  neutral  port  for  transshipment  to  a  blockaded 
port  of  the  enemy,  though  the  seizure  was  made  a  thousand  miles  oft' 
from  the  port  of  final  destination. 

When  this  ruling  was  made,  the  civil  war,  by  the  judgment  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  had  been  closed  for  nearly  a  year.  We  were  at  peace 
with  all  the  world.  Our  merchant  shipping,  it  is  true,  was  driven  from 
the  seas,  but  there  was  every  prospect,  on  the  basis  of  international 
law,  as  the  Constitution  meant  it,  of  our  old  maritime  strength  being 
renewed.  Oiir  future  had  neutrality  almost  indelibly  stamped  on  it, 
while  the  future  of  the  Old  World  was  marked  by  war,  which  made 
each  sovereignty  an  armed  camp  and  filled  each  great  port  with  swift 
cruisers,  ready,  in  case  of  conflict,  to  pounce,  not  merely  on  an  enemy, 
but  on  neutrals  who  might  presunie  to  do  any  carrying  trade  on  the 
high  seas.     With  such  a  prospect  before  us  we  deliberately  gave  away 


'^patches"    on    the    constitution.  XXXIII 

the  opportunity  of  covering  the  seas  with  our  merchant  service.  No 
wonder  the  English  law  officers  chuckled  with  delight  at  such  a  sur- 
render on  our  part,  and  declined,  before  the  mixed  commission  after 
constituted,  to  impeach  the  Springbok  ruling.  It  made  England,  al- 
ready dominant  on  the  seas,  master  not  only  of  her  shipping,  but  of 
ours.  It  would  enable  her,  next  time  she  goes  to  war  with  a  European 
foe,  to  cut  matters  short,  and  in  addition  to  blockading  her  enemy's 
ports  of  entrance,  to  blockade  our  ports  of  exit,  and  to  say  :  ^'  You  are 
the  feeders  of  the  enemy — from  you  come  the  grain  and  other  staples 
which  nourish  him — in  addition  to  enlarging  the  list  of  contraband  so 
as  to  comprehend  most  stores,  I  now,  in  conformity  with  your  own 
law,  as  propounded  in  the  Springbolc  case,  blockade  your  ports,  so  as  to 
keep  your  ships  from  carrying  out  anything  the  enemy  might  use. 
You  blockaded  my  neutral  port  of  Nassau;  /  blockade  your  neutral 
port  of  New  York."  It  is  not  strange  that  American  shipping  should 
languish  when  under  such  a  ban  as  this. 

Such  are  among  the  "patches"  which  have  been  woven  into  our 
constitutional  coat  by  its  guardians,  and  which,  so  far  as  they  are  per- 
manent, take  from  it  the  property  which  originally  belonged  to  it  of 
growing  with  our  growth.  One  of  these  patches,  that  imposed  by  the 
Dartmouth  College  decision,  has  been  substantially  got  rid  of,  partly 
by  overruling  by  the  court  itself,  partly  by  constitutional  amendments 
in  most  States,  which  preclude  granting  charters  without  reservation  of 
power  of  amendment.  The  "  patch  "  which  assumed  to  the  Federal 
Government  the  power  to  sell  exchange,  to  create  illusory  currency,  and 
to  absorb  banking  privileges  has  been  removed,  so  far  as  it  sanctioned 
a  national  government  bank,  by  popular  action ;  but  it  remains  in  its 
worst  feature  in  the  legal-tender  ruling,  by  which  it  is  held  that  Con- 
gress can,  as  a  permanent  peace  system,  force  the  reception  of  irredeem- 
able paper  in  payment  of  debts,  old  as  well  as  new.  And  the  Springhok 
ruling,  while  repudiated  by  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government, 
still  remains  unassailed  in  the  records  of  the  judiciary.- 

The  Constitution  itself  requires  no  amendment ;  but  what  is  required 
is  the  removal  from  it  of  the  "  patches,"  impairing  its  symmetry,  its 
comprehensiveness,  its  elasticy,  and  its  durability,  which  have  been 
imposed  on  it  by  the  judiciary. 

DeparTiMElNT  of  State,    Washington,  D.  C. 

Ill   WH — VOL   I 


PRELIMINARY  INDEX  TO  CORRESPONDENCE  AND  TO  TOPICS 
IN  INTRODUCriUN  AND  NOTES. 


Academy,  national,  for  reforming  and  ascertaining  the  English  language.    Congress 

asked  to  institute.     Adams  to  Congress,  Sept.  6,  1780. 
ACCOMMODATIOX  between  Britain  and  America.    No  prospect  of,  in  June,  1777.     Deane 

to  Dumas,  June  7,  1777.    (See  Peace,  Reconciliation,  Franklin.) 
Adams,  John— 

His  position  in  revolutiouar^'  politics.     Introduction,  ^^  \  ff. 

His  diplomatic  career.     Ibid.,  ^  129. 

Courage  and  oratorical  power.     Ibid.,  ^  130. 

Resistance  to  dominant  influences.     Ibid.,  §  131. 

How  far  influenced  by  vanity.     Ibid.,  ^  132. 

Zealous  performance  of  duty.     Ibid.,  ^  133. 

Changes  in  his  views  as  to  diplomacy  and  as  to  general  politics.     Ibid.,  $$  4,  134. 

So  as  to  his  conception  of  the  Revolution.     Ibid.,  §^4,  135. 
Early  politics  those  of  S.  Adams  ;  jealous  of  executive  power,  and  seeking  to 

place  all  power  in  Congress.     Ibid,,  ^^4,  209. 
After  peace  he  sought  to  create  a  strong  executive.     Ibid. 
But  always  deficient  in  administrative  power.     Ibid.,  ^  4. 
His  diplomatic  characteristics.     Ibid.,  §  129. 

Differs  with  Franklin  as  to  binding  efitect  of  instructions.     Infra,  ^  110,  126. 
One  of  the  committee  that  conferred  with  Lord  Howe.     Conferences  of  Frauklin, 

etc.,  with  Lord  Howe,  Sept.  11,  1776. 
Elected  commissioner  to  France.     Congress,  Nov.  28,  1777. 
Announcement  to.     Laurens  to  Adaius,  Nov.  28,  1787. 

Commissioned.     Committee  to  Adams,  Dec.  3,  1777  ;  Laurens  to  Adams,  Dec.  3,  1777. 
Accepts.     Adams  to  Laurens,  Dec.  23,  1777  ;  Adams  to  committee,  Dec.  24,  1777. 
From  Ve  Kalb,  Dec.  27,  1777. 

(See  De  Kalb  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Jan.  9,  1778. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
Instructions  to,  by  II.  Laurens,  Jan.  22,  J778. 

To  S.  Adams.     Plan  for  rectifying  expenses  of  commission,  May  21,  1778. 
To  committee  of  Congress.    Giving  suggestions  as  to  consuls  and  commercial  agents, 

May  24,  1778. 
To  Congress.     As  to  state  of  war  in  Europe,  July  9, 1778. 
To  Lovell.    Does  not  desire  to  remain  as  an  element  of  trouble,  and  wishes  a  fixed 

income,  July  26,  1778. 
To  Congress.     The  United  States  not  to  be  allured  into  a  separate  peace  with 

Britain,  July  27,  1778. 
To  S.  Adams.     ''France  is  th(;  natural  ally  of  the  United  States,  but  as  long  as 

Groat  Britain  shall  have  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  and  the  Floridas,  or  either  of 

them,  so  long  will  Great  Britain  be  the  eaemy  of  the  United  States,"  July 

28.  1778. 

1  W  H  1 


2  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Adams,  John— Continuecl. 

To  Wmren.    Position  of  England  as  to  tlie  United  States,  Aug.  4,  1778-. 
To  B.  H.  Lee.     Affairs  abroad ;  American  dissensions  at  Paris,  Aug.  5,  1778. 
To  Chaumont.     As  to  rent  of  bouse,  Sept.  15,  1778. 
From  Chaumont,  Sept.  18,  1778. 

(See  Chaumont  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  FranJclin.     As  to  expenses,  Sept.  22,  1778. 
To  Izard.     Views  as  to  fislieries,  Sept.  22,  1778. 
From  Izard,  Sept.  24,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  FranJclin,  Sept.  26,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Sept.  28,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Izard.     Views  as  to  iislieries,  Oct.  2,  1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  Oct.  6,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.    Declines  to  haA^e  papers  moved  to  A.  Lee's  house,  and  proposes  that 

Lee  should  move  to  Passy,  Oct.  10,  1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  answer  declining.     Oct.  12,  1778.     (See  A.  Lee  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Genet,  Oct.  24,  1778. 

(See  Genet  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Oct.  28,  1778. 

(See  E.  H.  Lee  and  Lovell  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Importance  of  straining  every  nervx  to  destroy  British  power    in 

United  States,  Dec.  3,  1778. 
To  Gerry.     Views  as  to  legation  at  Paris,  Dec.  5,  1778. 
To  Sherman.     Policy  to  be  adopted  by  France,  Dec.  6,  1778. 
To  Congress.     Views  as  to  war  and  British  action,  Dec.  8,  1778. 
To  Vergennes.     Defends  A.  Lee  against  Deane,  Feb.  11,  177J. 
From  Vergennes,  Feb.  13,  1779. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  committee.     Explains  breaks  in  correspondence,  Feb.  13,  1779. 
From  S.  Adams,  Feb.  14,  1779. 

(See  S.  Adams  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  S.  Adams.    Approves  of  legation  to  Paris  being  in  one  minister.  Fob.  14,  1779, 

and  80  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  15,  1779. 
To  Vergennes.     Deprecates  Deane's  app?al;   recognizes   Franklin's  influence  at 

court;  France's  support  of  America  natural  and  just,  Feb.  15,  1779, 
To  Lovell.     Discusses  charges  against  A.  and  \V.  Lee,  Feb.  20,  1779. 
From  Vergennes.     Parting  in  kindly  terms,  Feb.  21,  1779. 
To  La  Fayette.     Discusses  political  conditions,  Feb.  21,  1779. 
To  Congress.    Proposes  to  return  to  the  United  States,  Feb.  27,  1779, 
From  Sartine,  with  friendly  expressions,  Feb.  28.  1779, 
To  Congress.     As  to  English  loan,  Mar.  1,  1779. 
From  FranJclin,  Apr.  3,  1779. 

(See  FranJclin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  FranJclin,  Apr.  8,  1779. 

(See  FranJclin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Apr.  9,  1779. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  FranJclin,  Apr.  21,  1779. 

(See  FranJclin  to  Adams-  same  date.) 
From  FranJclin,  as  to  delay  in  sailing  of  Alliance,  Apr.  24,  1779. 
From  FranJclin,  May  10,  1779. 

( See  FranJclin  to  Adams,  same  date. ) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  3 

Adams,  John — Contimied. 

From  A.  Lev,  Jiiuo  5,  1771). 

(Seo  A.  Lee  to  Adams,  sume  date.) 
To  CoiK/ress.     Certifies  to  A.  Leo's  character  for  pafcriotisni,  Jaue  9,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Refers  to  voyage  to  America,  Juue  10,  1779. 
Fr.)m  Lovell,  Juno  13,  1779. 

(Seo  Lovell  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Speaks  liiglily  of  Luzerue,  Aug.  3,  4,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Gives  general  survey  of  Europe,  Aug.  i,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Asks  for  particulars  of  charges  against  liim,  Sept.  10,  1779. 
To  Treasurij  Board.     Statement  of  his  expenses  as  foreign  minister  and  action  of 

Congress  thereou,  Sept.  19,  1779. 
To  McKean,     Discusses  Paris  legation  and  criticises  Frankliu,  Sept.  20,  1779. 
From  Lovell,  Sept.  27,  1779. 

(See  Lovell  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
Proceedings  as  to  election  of  minister  to  Spain.     Lovell  to  Adams,  Sept.  27,  1779. 

Congressional  proceedings,  Sept.  28,  1779. 
From  Lovell,  Sept.  28,  1779. 

(See  Lovell  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  29,  1779. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
Appointed  x^eace  commissioner,  Oct.  4,  1779. 

To  Congress.     Accepts.     Gives  his  ox^inion  of  Izard,  Oct.  17,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Suggests  seizure  of  British  whale  iieet,  Oct.  19,  1779. 
Appointment  as  commissioner  aauounced.     Huntington  to  Adams,  Oct.  20,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Appoints  Thaxter  as  secretary,  Nov.  7,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Reports  his  arrival  in  Europe,  Dec.  11,  1779. 
To  Congress.     His  journey  through  Spain,  Doc.  16,  1779. 
To  governor  of  Corunna.     Describes  his  visit  to  Coruuna,  Dec.  18,  1779. 
From  Sartine,  Dec.  31,  1779. 

(See  Sartine  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Narrative  of  journey  through  Spain,  Jan.  16,  1780. 
To  Vergennes.    Announces  his  appointment  as  peace  commissioner;  j)roposes  to 
reside  in  Paris,  and  asks  whether  he  shall  report  to  the  British  Government, 
Feb.  12,  1780. 
To  Sartine.     Reports  arrival,  Feb.  13,  1780. 
To  Congress.    Reports  visit  to  Franklin  and  their  joint  visit  to  Versailles,  Feb. 

13,  1780. 
Vergennes  suggests  the  concealment  of  his  ''dventucl"  character.     Vergennes  to 

FranMin,  Feb.  13,  1780. 
From  Vergennes,  Feb.  15,  1780. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Accounts  for  certain  funds  received  in  Spain,  Feb.  17,  1780. 
To  Genet.     Exposure  of  British  misstatements,  Feb.  18,  1780. 
To  La  Fayette,  to  same  effect,  Feb.  18,  1780. 

To  Vergennes.     Declares  he  preserves  secrecy  as  to  his  mission,  Feb.  19,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Comments  on  political  prospects,  Feb.  19,  1780. 
From  La  Fayette,  Feb.  19,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     His  mission  suspected  in  England,  Feb.  20,  1780. 
From  Genet,  Feb,  20,  1780. 

(See  Genet  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.     Suggestions  as  to  correspondence,  Feb.  22,  1780. 
To  Warren.     French  naval  exertions,  Feb.  23,  1780. 
To  S.  Adams.    Exertions  of  France;  importance  of  privateering,  Feb.  23,  1780. 


4  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Adams,  John — Continued. 

From  Fergennes.    Is  informed  of  Vergennes's  reliance  on  the  United  States,  Feb. 

24,  1780. 
To  Congress.     As  to  publisliing  in  France,  American  constitutions,  Feb.  29,  1780. 
To  Congress.     British  campaign  ;  character  of  Rodney,  Mar.  3,  1780. 
To  S.  Adams.     Character  of  Zard  ;  importance  of  courtesy  towards  France,  Mar. 

4,  1780. 
To  Congress.    Presented  at  court.  Mar.  6,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Rodney's  success  and  movements,  Mar.  10,  1780. 
To  Jennings.     General  iiolitical  views.  Mar.  12,  1780. 
To  Congress.     General  politics.  Mar.  12,  1780. 
To  Congress.     General  politics,  Mar.  14,  1780. 
From  A.  Lee,  Mar.  15,  1780. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Lovell.    Difficulties  of  his  position,  Mar.  16,  1780. 
From  W.  Lee,  Mar.  17,  1780. 

(See  W.  Lee  to  Adams,  same  date. ) 
To  Congress.     Views  as  to  campaign.  Mar.  18,  19,  20,  1780. 
To  W.  Lee.     Views  as  to  truce,  Mar.  21,  1780, 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  publishing  his  mission.  Mar.  21,  1780. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Adams,  Mar.  30,  1780.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Mar.  26,  1780. 

(See  A.  Zee  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Views  as  to  public  affairs.  Mar.  23,  24,  26,  29,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Stating  his  position  in  regard  to  the  publication  of  his  mission,  Mar. 

30,  1780. 
To  Congress.     As  to  difficulties  in  Ireland,  Mar.  30,  1780. 
From  W.  Lee,  Mar.  30,  1780. 

(See  W.  Lee  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
Does  not  inform  Franklin  of  the  object  of  his  visit  to  Paris.    Franklin  to  Carmichael, 

Mar.  31,  1780. 
To  J.  Lee.     Declining  to  be  mixed  up  in  latter's  quarrels,  Mar.  31,  1780. 
To  TV.  Lee.     Opinion  as  to  probability  of  peace,  Apr.  2,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Views  of  affairs  in  Holland,  Apr.  3,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Views  as  to  English  politics,  Apr.  3,  1780. 
To  Congress.     British  attack  on  Swedish  frigate,  Apr.  4,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Information  as  to  public  affairs,  Apr.  7,  1780. 
To  Carmichacl.     General  politics,  Apr.  8,  1780. 
To  Congress.     British  losses  at  sea,  Apr.  8,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Russian  position  as  to  neufrality,  Apr.  10,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland,  Apr.  10,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Affairs  in  England,  Apr.  11,  1780. 
From  Digges,  Apr.  14,  1780. 

(See  Digges  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     (Jnrrent  political  news,  Apr.  14,  15,  17,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Speculations  as  to  peace,  Apr.  18,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  22,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichacl,  Apr.  22,  1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Current  political  news,  Apr.  24,  25,  26, 1780. 
From  linsh,  Apr.  28,  1780. 

(See  Rush  to  Adams,  same  date. ) 
To  Congress.     Current  political  news,  Apr.  29, 1780. 
To  Genet.    Suggests  publication  of  passage  from  Bolingbroke,  Apr.  29,  1780. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  5 

Adams,  Joiix— Contiuued. 

To  Congress.     Current  i>olitical  news,  May  2,  3,  1780. 

To  Genet.    Cruise  of  Captain  Waters ;  success  of  Americau  privateers,  May  3,  1780. 

From  Gerry,  May  5,  1780. 

(See  Gerry  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Conqiess.     Current  political  news,  May  8,  1780. 
To  Congress.    Spanish  rules  of  neutrality.  May  8,  1780. 
To  Vergennes.    Importance  of  alliance  to  France,  May  8,  1780. 
To  Genet.  Views  as  to  peace.  May  9,  1780. 
From  Vergennes,  May  10,  1780. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     As  to  Irish  affairs,  May  10,  1780. 
To  Congress.    Parliamentary  discussion  as  to  peace,  May  11,  1780. 
From  Digges,  May  12,  1780. 

(See  Digges  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Carmichael.     Current  political  news.  May  12,  1780. 
To  Jay.     Policy  of  France  and  Spain,  May  13,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Current  political  news,  May  13,  1780. 
To  Digges.     Resolute  attitude  of  the  United  States,  May  13,  1780. 
To  Jay.     Current  political  news,  May  1.5,  1780. 
To  Genet.     Position  of  the  United  States,  May  15,  1780. 
To  Congress.  Current  political  news.  May  15,  1780. 

To  Genet.     Views  as  to  relation  of  England  and  France  to  America,  May  17,  1780. 
From  Genet,  May  17,  1780. 

(See  Genet  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Position  of  Spain  and  Holland,  May  19,  1780. 
To  Vergennes.     Gives  Jate  American  news,  May  19,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Gives  Conway's  speech  in  House  of  Commons,  May  20,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Gives  other  extracts  from  debate.  May  20,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Recent  political  events,  May  23,  1780. 

To  A.  Lee.     Sees  grounds  for  dissatisfaction  with  his  allies  and  associates,  Mav 
25,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Gives  an  account  of  recent  political  events,  May  20,  27,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Ireland,  June  1,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Account  of  Rodney's  victory  of  April  17,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Criticism  on  speech  of  Germain,  June  1,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Character  of  George  III  an  obstacle  to  peace,  June  2,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland  and  Spain,  June  2,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Current  political  iiews,  June  4,  5,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Criticises  letter  of  General  Clinton,  June  G,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Current  political  news,  June  10,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Current  political  Irish  affairs,  June  12,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Reports  Shelburue's  speech  of  June  1,  June  12,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Criticises  pamphlet  of  Galloway,  Juno  16,  1780. 

To  Congress.    Hutchinson's  death  and  character;  bad  influence  of  refuffees  in 
England,  June  17,  1780. 

To  Vergennes.     Explanation  of  financial  difficulties,  June  20,  1780. 
(See  Vergennes  to  Adams,  Juno  21,  1780.) 

(As  to  correspondence  with  Vergennes  on  depreciation  of  currency,  see  Ver- 
gennes to  Adams,  June  21,  1780;  Adams  toVergennes,  June  22,  1780;  Adamsto 
Franldin,  June  22,  29,  1780 ;  see  also  Vergennes  to  Franklin  and  Vergennes 
to  Adams,  June  30,  1780.) 

To  Congress.     Importance  of  a  consul  at  Nantes,  June  29,  1780. 

To  Jefferson.     Mazzei,  information  as  to  ;  current  political  news,  June  29,  1780. 

To  Vergennes.     Loan-office  certificates  not  repudiation,  July  1,  1780. 


6  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Adams,  John — Continued. 

To  Congress.     Navy  should  be  more  particularly  employed  in  cruising,  July  6, 1780. 
To  Congress.     List  of  vessels  destroyed  on  both  sides  during  the  war,  July  6, 1780. 
To  Congress.     Reports  speech  of  Hartley  and  action  of  Parliament,  July  7,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Aftairs  in  Holland,  July  7, 1780. 
From  W.  Lee,  July  8, 1780. 

(See  W.  Lee  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  LoveU.     (Committee  empowered  to  assume  Laurens's  duties  in  Holland, 

July  11,  1780.) 
To  Fergennes.  Gives  his  counsels  based  on  the  condition  of  the  war;  maintains 
that  the  English  in  Americaare  now  and  have  been  for  two  years  in  the  power 
of  their  adversaries  ;  that  a  superior  French  fleet  should  be  continually  main- 
tained on  the  American  waters  ;  that  there  is  a  party  unfriendly  to  France  in 
the  United  States  ;  that  there  is  a  strong  effort  made  to  prove  that  France  is 
only  seeking  to  depress  both  America  and  England  by  an  unnecessary  protract- 
ing of  the  war;  that  unless  France  makes  greater  efforts  this  belief  will  be- 
come general,  July  13,  1780.  (Answered  by  Vergennes,  July  20,  1780.) 
To  Congress.     Proposed  neutral  congress  ;  misstatements  of  English  papers  as  to 

America,  July  14,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Current  political  news,  July  15,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Statement  of  contending  naval  forces,  July  15,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Condition  of  Russian  politics;  Russia  will  not  join  England,  July 

15, 1780. 
To  Vergennes.    Announcing  that  he  thinks  he  should  at  once   communicate  to 
Britain  his  full  powers,  July  17,  1780. 
(See  Vergennes^  protest,  July  25,  1780. 
To  Congress.    Dilates  on  attitude  of  Russia  and  Prussia,  July  19,  1780. 
To  TV.  Lee.    Clinton's  fictitious  letter ;  slight  prospects  of  peace,  July  20,  1780. 
To  Vergennes.    Expresses  satisfaction  with  what  Vergennes  tells  him  of  French 

efforts,  July  21,  1780. 
To  Congress.    Gives  current  political  news,  July  22,  1780. 

To  Congress.    Cumberland's  mission  at  Madrid  ;  exultation  of  British  at  late  vic- 
tories, July  23,  1780. 
To  Vergennes.    Agrees  to  suspend  notification  to  Britian  of  his  powers  until  ho 

hears  from  Congress,  but  retains  his  former  opinion,  July  26,  1780. 
To  Vergennes.    Controverts  Vergeuues's  statement  that  the  King's  aid  to  Congress 
was  unsolicited;  gives  advice  as  to  best  way  of  employing  the  French  fleet, 
July  27,  1780. 
From  Vergennes.    Declining  further  correspondence,  July  29,  1780, 
From  Congress,  July  30,  1780. 

(See  Congress  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

(See  Runtington,  President  Congress,  advising  him  that  Vergennes^  position  is 
''  well  founded."     Infra,  Jan.  10,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Differences  between  himself  and  Franklin  as  to  the  attitude  to  bo 

maintained  toward  France,  Aug.  9,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Laments  non-arrival  of  Laurens;  gives  Swedish  and  Danish  decla" 

rations  of  neutrality  ;  importance  of  minister  at  Holland,  Aug.  14,  1780. 
To  Franliin.     Political  speculations;  value  of  French  alliance  reciprocal,  Aug, 

17,  1780. 
To  Congress.     France's  reply  to  Sweden's  neutrality  declaration,  Aug.  22,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Probabilities  of  campaign  ;  want  of  a   loan   agency   in  Europe, 

Aug.  23,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Asking  them  to  institute  an  academy  for  reforming  and  ascertain- 
ing the  English  language,  Sept.  3,  1780. 
From  LoveU.     Saying  no  further  drafts  will  be  sent,  Sept.  7,  1780. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  7 

Adams,  John— Continned. 

Frojn  Dana,  Sept.  8,  1780. 

(Sec  Daua  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

To  Coiujress.  Mentioning  current  events;  sees  no  prospect  of  liis  commission  be- 
ing of  utility  ;  importance  of  privateering  ;  English  seizure  of  Russian  ships 
and  its  probable  consequences,  Sept.  IG,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Acce])t8  appointment  as  agent  to  Holland,  Sept.  19,  Oct.  5, 1780. 

To  Congress.  Will  not  make  known  his  agency  ;  comments  on  the  superiority  of 
the  English  language  to  the  Dutch,  Sept.  20,  1780. 

To  Congress.  Value  of  constitutions  of  American  States  as  authorities  ;  English 
inlluence  in  Holland,  Sept.  25,  1780. 

To-  Congress.  Reports  presentation  of  Dutch  envoys  to  Russia,  Sept.  28,  Oct. 
3,  1780. 

From  FranJcUn,  Oct.  2,  1780. 

(See  FranJiHn  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

To  Dumas.     As  to  peace  prospects,  Oct.  4,  1780. 

To  Congress.     As  to  Portuguese  exclusion  of  prizes,  Oct.  6, 1780. 

Resolutions  of  Congress.  Instructing,  not  to  agree  to  truce,  nor  to  the  restora- 
tion of  refugees,  Oct.  8,  1780. 

From  FranWni.  Advising  him  of  the  oft'ense  given  to  Vergennes  by  certain  ex- 
pressions, and  advising  him  that  if  they  were  inadvertent  they  be  explained, 
Oct.  8,  1780. 

To  Congress.  Information  as  to  Dutch  affairs  ;  suggests  minister  to  Holland,  Oct. 
11.1780. 

From  Franklin,  Oct.  20, 1780. 
(See  Franhlin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

To  Franllin.  Acknowledging  the  introduction  of  Van  der  Capellan ;  stating  that 
he  (Adams)  has  powers  from  Congress  to  take  the  place  of  Laurens,  Oct.  22, 
1780. 

To  Congress.  Barbaric  treatment  of  Laurens  ;  settling  down  at  The  Hague,  Oct. 
24, 1780. 

To  Congress.  Capture  of  some  of  Laurens'  papers,  and  their  disclosure  in  Hol- 
land ;  severity  of  his  treatment,  Oct.  26, 1780. 

From  LoveU,  Oct.  28, 1780. 
(See  LoveU  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

To  Congress.    Political  affairs  in  England  and  the  United  States,  Oct.  31, 1780. 

To  Franklin.    As  to  payment  of  bills  drawn  on  Laurens,  Nov.  4, 1780, 

To  Congress.     Giving  Yorke's  memorial  to  Congress,  Nov.  16, 1780. 

To  Congress.  Showing  the  dangers  to  Holland  from  British  intervention,  Nov. 
17, 1780. 

To  Fan  der  Capellan.  Showing'the  dangers  to  Holland  from  British  intervention, 
Nov.  20, 1780. 

To  Franklin.    No  prospect  of  loan  in  Holland,  Nov.  24, 1780. 

To  Congress.    Critical  condition  of  Holland,  Nov.  25, 1780. 

To  Franklin.    Dangerous  crisis  at  Holland,  Nov.  30, 1780. 

To  Congress.  Dangerous  crisis  at  Holland ;  no  money  to  be  there  obtained ;  strength 
of  English  influence,  Nov.  30, 1780. 

To  Capellan.     Discusses  relations  of  Holland  to  America,  Dec.  9,  1780. 

Narrates  Yorke's  final  demand  on  Holland,  Dec.  18,  1780. 

To  Cnslting.  Affairs  in  Holland  resulting  from  Laurens'  capture  and  disclosure  of 
his  papers  ;  favorable  views  of  the  Russian  Empress  ;  no  occasion  for  gloom ; 
danger  to  America  of  extravagant  luxury  ;  censure  of  American  public  men ; 
advises  sumptuary  laws ;  ruin  that  would  follow  accommodation  with 
Britain ;  evil  effect  of  refugees  in  England ;  advises  imprisoning  all  disaffected 
persons ;  '*  would  hang  my  own  brother  if  he  took  part  with  the  enemy,"  Dec, 
15,  1780. 


8  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Adams,  John — Continued. 

To  Congress.     Gives  ii  sketch  of  Dutch  churches,  Dec.  21,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Recall  of  Yorke  and  iiiobabilitj'^  of  Dntch  war  witli  Britain  (three 
letters),  Dec.  25,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Uupopularity  of  British  ministry,  Dec.  26,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Complications  ensuing,  Dec.  28,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Position  of  Zealand  and  relations  to  England,  Dec.  30,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Want  of  information  and  probabilities  as  to  war,  Dec.  31,  1780. 

To  Huntington.     Commissioned  as  minister  to  the  Low  Countries,  Jan.  1, 1781. 

To  Congress.  British  manifesto  of  Dec,  1780,  against  the  United  Provinces ;  orders 
of  council  as  to  seizure  of  Dutch  vessels  and  goods,  Jan.  1,  1781. 

From  Dana,  Jan.  1,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

Credentials  of,  to  The  Netherlands,  Jan.  3,  1781. 

To  Congress.  American  cause  popular  in  The  Netherlands;  loan  not  obtainable; 
Dumas  recommended  to  Congress,  Jan.  4,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Affairs  in  Holland;  Yorke  ordered  homo  without  taking  leave; 
Dutch  minister  in  London  ordered  home,  Jan.  5,  1781. 

From  Huntington  (President  of  Congress).  Saying  that  Congress  holds  that  Ver- 
gennes'  objections  to  Adams  ccmmunicating  his  peace  commission  to  Great 
Britain  are  well  founded  ;  also  that  Congress  desires  that  he  will  not  be  in- 
fluenced as  to  his  action  by  views  as  to  contingencies  of  English  politics,  Jan. 
10,  1781. 
(See  Lovel  to  FranJcUn,  March  9,  1781.) 

To  Congress.  Dntch  anger  at  England  ;  Empress  of  Russia  indignant  at  the  me- 
morials of  Sir  Joseph  Yorke;  convention  to  be  signed  23d  instant;  loiters  of 
marque  to  be  given  against  the  English  ;  the  country  unprepared  for  war; 
loan  can  not  yet  be  raised,  Jan.  14, 1781. 

To  Congress.  Zealand  endeavoring  to  bring  about  negotiations  with  England; 
the  companies  of  commerce  and  insurance  present  a  petition,  supported  by  a 
resolution  of  the  States  of  Zealand,  for  negotiations  with  England;  navy  of 
Holland,  Jan.  15,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Address  of  the  Prince  of  Orange  to  the  States-General,  recommend- 
ing preparation  for  war  ;  reply  of  the  States-General,  approving,  Jan,  15, 1781. 

To  Congress.  Declaration  of  the  States-General,  acceding  to  the  armed  neutrality, 
Jan.  15,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Loan  can  not  be  obtained;  advises  Congress  not  to  draw  in  Hol- 
land, Jan.  1.5,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Proclamation  of  the  States-General  to  encourage  privateering;  pro- 
clamation that  all  marines  in  the  sea  service  of  Holland  will  receive  a  sum  of 
money  and  the  totally  disabled  a  pension,  Jan.  18,  1781. 

To  Dana.  Lr-thargy  of  the  Dutch;  his  sole  jiecuniary  resource  is  Franklin;  im- 
portance of  treaty  with  the  Dutch,  Jan.  18,  1781. 

To  Dana.  Pleased  with  action  of  Congress  on  Dec.  12,  1780  ;  deprecates  the  croak- 
ing of  Sullivan,  Pickering,  and  Deane;  thinks  he  could  borrow  money  if  he 
had  a  commission,  Feb.  8,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Treaty  of  marine  and  neutrality  between  Russia,  Denmark  and 
Norway,  Sweden,  and  Holland,  Feb.  11,  178L 

To  Fravklin.  Requests  funds  to  pay  bills  drawn  by  Congress ;  peace  between 
Holland  and  England  not  probable  ;  expects  to  obtain  loan,  Feb.  15,  1781. 

To  Franklin.     Will  send  information  of  bills  of  exchange;  Vauguyon  and  Ver- 
gennos  advises;  demand  for  an  answer  (to  the  proposition  of  an  alliance); 
action  of  America  in  proposing  alliance,  Feb.  20,  1781. 

From  Franklin,  Feb.  22,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date). 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  9 

Adams,  John — Continued. 

To  La  Vanguyon.  Friesland  resolves  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of  Amer- 
ica; requests  Vauguyou's  opinion  as  to  advisability  of  proposing  a  treaty 
between  Holland  and  America,  Mar.  1,  Xl^V. 

To  the  States-General.  Presenting  rcHolutions  of  Congress  acceding  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  neutrality  declared  by  Russia,  Mar.  8,  1781. 

To  Vaiir/uj/on.  Presents  resolution  of  Congress  acceding  to  the  principles  of  neu- 
trality declared  by^  Russia,  Mar.  8.  1781. 

To  Van  Berckel.  Presents  resolution  of  Congress  acceding  to  the  principles  of 
neutrality  declared  by  Russia,  Mar.  8,  1781. 

To  Gallitzen.  Presents  resolution  of  Congress  acceding  to  the  principles  of  neu- 
trality declared  by  Russia,  Mar.  8,  1781. 

To  Sapherin.  Presents  resolution  of  Congress  acceding  to  the  principles  of  neu- 
trality declared  by  Russia,  Mar.  8,  1781. 

To  Ehrenswerd.  Presents  resolution  of  Congress  acceding  to  the  principles  of 
neutrality  declared  by  Russia,  Mar.  8,  1781. 

To  Dana.  As  to  their  personal  relations ;  as  to  torpor  prevalent  in  Holland,  Mar. 
12,  1781. 

From  Vauguijon.     Declining  to  give  his  good  offices  as  requested  by,  Mar.  14,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Manifesto  of  Holland  against  England  ;  offer  of  Russia  to  mediate; 
the  ofier  accepted,  Mar.  18,  1781. 

Commission  as  minister  to  Holland  received  ;  negotiations  for  a  loan  ;  division  of 
sentiment  in  that  nation ;  England  desires  to  involve  Europe  in  war,  Mar. 
19,  1781. 

To  Jay.  Spain's  delay  in  recognizing  the  United  States  influences  Holland,  Mar. 
28,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Will  consult  as  to  conduct  on  his  mission  to  Russia.  Dana  to  Con- 
gress, Mar.28,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Memorial  presented  by  Baron  de  Lynden,  from  Holland  to  the  King 
of  Sweden,  asking  aid,  Mar.  29,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Taxes  in  England ;  financial  systems  of  France  and  England;  ne- 
cessity of  fixed  taxes  and  credit  at  home  to  establish  America's  credit  in 
Europe,  Mar.  29,  1781. 

From  Franklin,  Apr.  7,  1781. 

(See  FranMin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

To  Congress.  Can  raise  no  funds  in  The  Netherlands,  and  must  depend  on  Frank- 
lin; affairs  in  The  Netherlands,  Apr.  G,  1781. 

To  Franllin.  As  to  Arnold's  corruption  ;  has  failed  in  his  loan  efforts  in  Holland  ; 
America  might  be  able  to  stand  alone;  is  badly  treated  in  Europe,  Apr.  16, 
1781. 

To  Vanguyon.  Power  to  conclude  a  treaty  with  Holland  received;  also  letter  of 
credence  to  the  States-General  and  the  Prince  of  Orange  as  minister  pleni- 
potentiary to  Holland,  Apr.  16,  1781. 

To  Dana.  Advice  as  to  his  conduct  on  his  mission  to  Russia  ;  advises  him  to  go  to 
Russia  as  a  private  gentleman  without  consulting  the  French  minister,  and 
then,  when  in  Russia,  to  call  on  the  Russian  minister  to  receive  him  ;  approves 
the  sending  of  ministers  to  the  several  courts  of  Europe,  Apr.  18,  1781, 

From  Dana,  Apr.  18,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

To  the  States  General.  Informing  them  cf  his  commission  as  minister  plenipo- 
tentiary and  proposing  a  treaty,  Apr.  19,  1781. 

To  the  Prince  of  Orange.  Informing  him  of  his  commission  as  minister  plenipo- 
tentiary, with  power  to  make  a  treaty,  and  inclosing  his  memorial  to  the 
States-General,  Apr.  19,  1781.  , 

From  FranMin,  Apr.  29,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 


jQ  PRELIMINARY   INDEX. 

^"^To'  F°"nmTt^ronm.;  thiul™  a  set  of  bills  may  procure  Congress  a  loan; 
amlmces  receipt  of  comunssioa  as  minister,  empowering  him  to  make  a 

treaty,  Apr.  27,  1781.  at      i    i-rai  ' 

To  Vauqmjon.     As  to  joint  action  with  other  powers,  May  1,  1  81.  ^ 

To  IZgZ.    Presentation  of  his  powers  to  the  grand  pens.onary  of  Holland, 

To  c'^rLel/' ffi  reception  declined  by  the  Prince  of  Orange,  on  the  ground  that 
rfindependence'of  the  United  States  had  not  yet  been  acknowledged; 
French  minister  dissents  from  Adams'  course^  May  7,  1781. 

To  Franllin.     As  to  loans  and  accounts,  May  8,  1781. 

To  J.t!'!^r,..    As  to  Laurens'  late  action  in  obtaining  loans;  agency  of  Major 

Tot::^^^l^^merno.i^,  and  also  as  to  affairs  in  Holland,  May  16,  1781 
To  ^ngi^ss.    As  to  affairs  in  Holland;  despairs  of  obtammg  money  there,  May 

16,  1781. 
From  FrmMin,  May  19,  1781. 

(SeerraHWi«toJfZrtms,  same  date.)  on  i7fti 

To  Congress.     Giving  French  and  Dutch  convention,  May  20,  1781. 
To  Congress,    Prussian  navigation  ordinance.  May  21,  1/81. 
To  FnLun.    As  to  affairs  in  Holland  ;  as  to  addressing  memorial  to  Dutch  an. 

thorities.  May  23,  1781. 
To  Congress.    As  to  affairs  in  Holland,  May  24,  1781. 

To  Cmwress      Giving  Dutch  state  papers.  May  27,  1781.  ^    .       .    ,         i 

To  Co IC  His  war,t  of  confidenco  iu  the  French  court,  an,!  his  offering  .ndepen  -  - 
eufrgotiations  with  Britain  likely  to  embarrass  both  France  and  Englaud.| 
X^^erne  to  CoHfifms,  May  28,  1781.  ooi7Ml  S 

To  Congress.  English  blunder,  in  the  capture  of  St.  Eustatia,  May  29,  1781. 
To  Conaress      Giving  Dutch  documents,  May  29,  1781.  t     «  i  \ 

To  Sr.    Notifies  States-General  of  the  United  States  Confederation,  Jane  l,\ 

1781. 
From  FranUin,  June  5,  1781. 

(See  FranUin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Affairs  iu  Holland,  June  5,  1781. 

To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland,  June  11,  1781.  ^ 

From  Franldin,  June  11,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    Affairs  in  Holland,  June  12,  1781.  | 

To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland,  June  15,  1781. 
From  Congress,  June  20,  1781. 

(See  Huntington  (Congress)  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Position  of  Eussia  as  to  mediation,  June  2o,  1/8  - 
To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland,  June  23,  1781.  i.  T>.u;«h  o-oods  into 

To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland;  also  as  to  introduction  of  Uritish  goods  n 

the  United  States  in  neutral  bottoms,  June  26,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Affairs  iu  Holland,  June  26,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  Jackson's  accounts,  June  27,  1781. 

To  Congress.     As  to  affairs  in  Holland,  June  29,  1781. 

From  FranUin,  June  30,  1781. 

(See  FranUin  to  Adams,  same  date. 

To  Congress.     Proceedings  in  Holland,  July  5,  1781. 

To  rergennes.     As  to  mediation  proposition,  July  7,  1781. 

To  Congress.     Proceedings  in  Holland,  July  7,  1781. 

To  Congress.     Proceedings  in  Russia,  July  7,  1781. 

To  Congress.     As  to  proceedings  iu  Holland,  July  10,  1781, 

To  Congress.     As  to  mediation,  July  11,  1871. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  11 

Adams,  John — Continued. 

FroaiL  Congress.     Revocation   of  his  powers  to  negotiate  a  comiuercial   treaty, 

July  12,  1781. 
To  Vergenucs.     As  to  mediation,  July  13,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  mediation,  July  14,  1781. 
To  Vergenncs.     As  to  mediation,  July  1(1,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  att'airs  in  Holland,  July  17,  1781. 
To  Vergenncs.     As  to  mediation,  July  18,  1781. 
To  Vergenncs.     As  to  mediation,  July  19,  1781. 

(See  Vergenncs  to  Adams,  July  18,  1781.) 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  treaty-making  power  in  the  Uuited  States,  July  21,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  affairs  in  Holland,  July  21,  1781. 
From  Lovell.     As  to  commission,  July  21,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  current  political  events,  Aug.  3,  1781. 
To    Congress.     As  to  current  political   events;  ;is    to   agents  at  Eustatia,   Aug. 

3, 1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  current  political  news,  Aug.  (>,  8,  1781. 
From  Franllin,  Aug.  0,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  sauu^  date.) 
From  Franllin,  Aug.  12,  1781. 

(See  Franllin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  Aug.  16,  1781. 

(See  Congress  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From.  Franklin,  Aug.  16,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Congress.     Instructions  as  to  treaty  with  Holland,  Aug.  1(5,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Giving  a  statement  as  to  the  political  status  of  Temi.le,  Aug.  16, 

1781. 
To  Congress.     Russia's  mediation  for  Holland,  Aug,  16,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Account  of  naval  action  of  Aug.  5,  18,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Account  of  naval  action  of  Aug.  5,  22,  1781. 

To  Congress.     Current  j)olitical  events;  position  of  Van  Berckel,  Aug.  22,  1781. 
'To  Franklin.     As  to  progress  of  peace  negotiations ;  mediation  makes  no  jirogreas ; 
fighting  the  only  effectual  method  of  negotiation;  '■'  my  talent,  if  I  have  one, 
is  for  making  war,"  Aug.  25,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  25,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
;From  Dana,  Aug.  28,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  31, 1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Lovell,  Sept.  1,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

Bills  turned  to  Frauklin  for  payment.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Sept.  21,  1781. 
'  To  F'ranklin.     Stating  what  expenses  are  to  he  regarded  as  public,  Oct.  4,  1781. 
To  Franliin.     Satisfaction  with  receiving  the  new  commission  of  peace;  advises 
that  Vergennes  should  he  informed  of  the  extension  of  the  commission,  Oct« 
4,  1781. 
From   Franklin.     As  to   commission;    giving  American    news  and   speaking    of 

Adams'  heavy  acceptances,  and  his  hope  of  a  Dutch  loan,  Oct.  5,  1781. 
To  Congress.  Approves  of  new  conunission  cf  peace;  does  not  believe  that  the 
English  will  treat  for  many  years  ;  Las  failed  in  attempts  to  borrow  monej'; 
his  reception  put  off,  he  does  not  know  for  how  long  ;  the  English  party  in 
Holland  not  likely  to  succeed  ;  his  own  ill  health  would  make  him  willing  to 
be  recalled,  Oct.  15,  1781. 


12  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Adams,  John — Continued. 

To' Congress.     As  to  affairs  iu  Holland,  Oct.  17,  18,  25 ;  Nov.  1,  1781. 
From  Livingsion,  Oct.  23,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  io  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  FranlcJin,  Nt/V.  7,  1781. 

(See  FranliJin  to  Adams,  same  date. 
From  FranMin,  Nov.  23,  1781. 

(See  Franllin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Vaiigut/on.     As  to  conference,  Nov.  24,  25,  1781. 

To  Franllin.     As  to  Russian  mediation  with  Holland  ;  congratulations  as  to  York- 
town,  Nov.  20,  1781. 
To  Jay.     As  to  Yorktown  ;  prejudicial  effect  of  delay  of  Spain,  Nov.  20,  1781. 
From  Livingston.     The  recall  of  his  powers  to  make  commercial  treaty  with  Britani, 

Nov.  20,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  20,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Jay.     As  to  peace  commission  and  Cornwallis'  surrender,  Nov.  28,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Affairs  iu  Holland,  December  4,  1781. 
From  Vauguyon,  December  7,  1781 . 

(See  Vauguyon  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  14,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Britain  accepts  Russia's  mediation  Avitli  Holland,  Dec.  12,  24,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Movements  iu  Holland  towards  the  United  States,  Dec.  14,  1781. 
From  Jay,  Dec.  15,  1781. 

(See  Jay  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  17,  1781.  < 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     As  to  his  action  in  Holland,  Dec.  18,  1781.  ; 

To  T'auguyon.     As  t3  diplomatic  action,  Dec.  19,  1781. 
From  Vauguyon,  Dec.  20,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Prussiau  navigation  ordinances,  Dec.  25.  1781. 
From  Livingston,  Doc.  20,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Accessiou  of  Germany  to  armed  neutrality,  Dec.  29,  1781. 
From  Vauguyon.     Giving  advice  of  Vergeunes  iu  favor  of  his  visit,  under  certain 

limitations,  to  Dutch  officials,  Dec.  30,  1781. 
From  Livingsion,  Jan.  9, 1782. 

(See  Livingsion  to  Adams,  same  date. 
To  Congress.     Announces  Lis  reception  at  The  Hague  and  the  condition  of  affairs 

iuHolland,  Jan.l4, 1782. 
To  Congress.     Reports  position  of  Russia,  Jan.  15, 1782. 
To  Congress.     Reports  position  of  Sweden,  Jan.  10, 1782. 
To  Franklin.     Failure  to  obtain  a  new  Dutch  loan,  Jan.  25, 17-'2. 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  4, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  12, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Livingsion.    Position  of  Affairs  in  Holland,  Feb.  14, 19, 1782. 
To  Franklin.     Is  not  officially  received  by  the  Government  of  The  Netherlands, 
and  objects  to  remaining  incognito;  his  awkward  position  at  The  Hague; 
charged  v/itli  vanity ;  American  diplomats  considered  as  "  a  kind  of  militia, 
Feb.  20, 1782. 
To  Livingsion.    Condition  of  affairs  at  Holland;  has  purchased  a  house  for  the 
legation  at  The  Hague,  Feb.  27, 1782. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  13 

A.DAMS,  John— Continued. 

From  Vainjuyon    His  course  critized,  Mar.  4,  1782. 

From  Livingston.     Advised  to  Lave  kindly  relations  to  Vauguyon,  Mar.  5,  1782. 

To  Livingston.     Narrates  action  of  British  Parliament,  Mar.  10,  1782. 

Question  of  his  public  reception  at  The  Hague,  Mar.  11,  1782. 

From  Franklin,  Mar.  11,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Discusses  public  atlairs,  Mar.  15,  1782. 

To  Livingston.     Sends  papers  iu  respect  to  his  reception  as  minister  at  Holland 
Mar.  19,  1782.  ' 

Part  iu  peace  negotiations.    (See  Franklin's  journal  from  Mar.  21  to  July  1,  1782, 
under  date  of  July  1,  1782.  ) 

To  Franklin.     Visited  by  Digges,  who  converses  with  him  as  to  peace,  Mar  26 
1782.  X  ,  .      , 

(See  Digges  to  Franklin,  Mar.  22,  1782.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Mar.  27,  1782. 

(See  La  Layette  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  31,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

To  Fan  Bleiswick.     Acknowledges  action  of  Holland  and  West  Friesland  Mar  ']1 
1782.  '         '      ' 

To  Vauguyon.     Mentions  communication  from  Digges,  Apr.  10,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  13,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  peace  negotiations,  Apr.  16,   1782.     (Given  iu  Franklin's 

journal  under  date  of  July  1,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     As  to  Holland  aiiairs,  Apr.  19,  22,  1782. 
From  Dana,  Apr.  23,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Attairs  iu  Holland,  Apr.  23,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Comments  on  court  ceremonial,  Apr.  23,  1782. 
To  Franklin.      Peace  negotiations.  May   2,   178^.     (Given  iu  Franklin's  ionrnal 

under  date  of  July  1,  17f^2.) 
To  Dnmas.     As  to  social  duties,  May  2,  1782. 

Estimate  of  his  expenses.     Livingston  to  Congress,  May  8,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  May  8,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date,  in  Franklin's  journal,  July  1,  1782.) 
To  Dana.     Afiairs  in  Holland,  May  13,  1782. 

To  Livingston.     Affairs  iu  Holland  ;  importance  of  services  of  Dumas    Mav  16 
1782.  --  'J      7 

From  Livingston,  May  22,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Aelams,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston.     Instructed  as  to  impropriety  of   listening  to  suggestions  of 

separate  peace.  May  29,  1782. 
From  Livingston.     His  course  approved,  May  30,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Affairs  in  Holland  ;  visit  from  Laureus,  June  9,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  peace  commission  and  aftairs  in  Holland,  Juno  13,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     As  to  peace  between  Holland  and  England,  June  14,  1782. 
To  Livingston.    As  to  diplomatic  intercourse  with  Holland,  Juno  15,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Financial  operations  of  Franklin  and  Morris,  June  25   1782. 
From  Livingston,  July  4,  1782.  ' 

(See  Livingston  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  LivingsloH.     As  to  Dutch  loan  ;  as  to  a  Dutch  reception,  inclosing  an  address 
from  Schiedam,  July  5,  1782. 
'  From  Jcty,  Aug.  2,  1782. 


14  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Adams,  John — Continued. 

(See  Jay  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.    As  to  comiuission  of  peace  and  as  to  political  prospects,  Aug.  10,  1782. 
To  Jay.     As  to  Fitz  Herbert's  commission ;  as  to  necessity  of  taking  an  independ- 
ent position,  Aug.  13,  1782. 
To  Jay.     As  to  political  details,  Aug.  17,  1782. 

To  Livingston.    As  to  political  details;  Dutcli  position  as  to  peace,  Aug.  18, 1782. 
To  Laurens.     As  to  Fitz  Herbert's  commission,  Aug.  18,  1782. 
To  Livingston.    As  to  treaty  witli  Holland,  Aug.  22,  1782. 
From  Laurens,  Aug.  27,  1782. 

(See  Laurens  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Aug.  29,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Position  of  Frencli  fleet ;  condition  of  affairs  in  Holland  leading 

Dutcli  politicians;  and  of  foreign  ministers  in  Holland,  Sept.  4,  1782. 
To  Livingston,  Suspects  France  of  encouraging  Spain's  delays  in  acknowledging 
independence;  approves  (differing  frosn  Franklin)  sending  ministers  to 
Berlin,  Vienna,  Tuscany,  etc.  ;  reports  affairs  in  Holland ;  peace  negotia- 
tions; Vergennes  disapproves  of  triple  alliance;  should  not  be  bound  by 
Frencli  advice,  Sept.  G,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Gives  account  of  bis  expenses,  including  purchase  of  house  at 

The  Hague,  Sept.  7,  1782. 
To  Laurens.     Deplores  ''infernal  arts"  used  to  create  dissensions  among  Ameri- 
can ministers,  Sept.  15,  1782. 
To  Congress.     Objects  to  form  of  British  commission  ;  desires  Jennings  as  secre- 
tary to  commission,  Sept.  15,  1782. 
To  Congress.     His  reception  by  Holland  as  minister  acknowledged.     Livingston  to 

governors  of  states,  Sept.  15,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  15,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Dana.     Speaking  of  his  success  in  Holland,  Sept.  17, 1782. 
To  Livingston.     Speculations  as  to  peace;  conversations  with  difierent  foreign 

ministers  ;  concert  of  Dutch  and  French  fleets,  Sept.  23,  1782. 
To  Livingston.  Memorial  as  to  Bank  of  Amsterdam,  Sept.  26,  1782. 
From  Morris,  Sept.  27,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Sept.  28,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  La  Fayette.     Pleasant  relations  at  The  Hague,  Sept.  29,  1782. 
From  La  Fayette,  Oct.  6,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.     Conclusion  of  treaty  with  Holland,  Oct.  7,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Conclusion  of  treaty  with  Holland,  Oct.  8,  1782. 
To  Dana.     Conclusion  of  treaty  with  Holland,  Oct.  10,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Conclusion  of  treaty  with  Holland,  Oct.  12,  1782. 
From  Dana,  Oct.  15,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Arrival  at  Paris;  has  called  on  Jay,  and  find  that  they  are  per- 
fectly agreed ;  does  not  consider  himself  bound  to  do  nothing  without  French 
consent;  suspects  that  Rayneval  went  to  England  to  "insinuate  something 
relative  to  the  fisheries  and  the  boundaries,"  Oct.  31,  1782. 
(See  Journal  of  peace  negotiations,  Nov.  2,  1782.) 
From  FranUin,  Nov.  3,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Oswald.    Estatea  of  loyalists  can  not  be  restored,  Nov.  5, 1782. 


PRELIMINAUY    INDEX.  15 

Adams,  John— Continued, 

To  TAiurciis.     llr^cs  attontlanco  of  Laiirons,  Nov.  ('»,  1782. 

To  lAvittijston.     Narrates  iJiogress  of  no<;()tiatioii,s    for  peace;    cautions   afjfainst 

France,  Nov.  0,  178-2. 
'       To  FrdiikUn.     Settloniont  of  accounts  ;  has  only  obtained  one  million  and  ;i  lialf 

•Guilders  instead  of  live  millions  at  Holland  ;  prospects  of  peace,  Nov.  (»,  178:2. 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  0,1782. 

(See  Livingsto)i  to  A(hims,  ^ame  date.) 
To  Dana.     Mentioning  British  recoirnition  of  independence,  and  thinkin<,f  that 

Dana  may  now  bo  received,  Nov.  8, 1782. 
To  Livingston.     Objects  to  rule  reqnirin<j;  consultation  with  France,  Nov.  8, 1782. 
His  interview  with  Vergenucs,  with  whom  he  dines  and  converses.     Journal, 

Nov.  10, 1782. 
To  Livingsifon.     Conversations  with  Whiteford  and  Oswald.     Journal,  Nov.  11, 

17S2. 
To  Livingston.     Narrates  progress  of  negotiations  ;  exhibits  his  distinctive  views  ; 

distrusts  France,  but  opposes  re-instatement  of  tories,  Nov.  11,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  13, 1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  A(la7ns,8'dme  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Further  protests  against  his  instructions,  Nov.  18, 1782. 
To  Livingston.     Argues  that  America  is  to  bo  suspicious  of  all   great  European 

powers;   compensation  refused  to  tories;    visited  by  Ridley  and  Bancroft  j 

speculations  as  to  English  politics,  Nov.  20,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Discusses  fisheries,  Nov.  25,  2G,  28,21),  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Speculations  as  to  course  of  British  ministry,  Nov.  21,  1782. 
JonrnaJ  (fishery  discussion),  Nov.  26,28,29,1782. 
Journal  (lisher3'-  and  Mississippi),  Nov.  30,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     Suggests  writing  to  Dana  to  communicate  treaty  of  peace  to  Russia 

and  the  foreign  minister  there  resident,  and  also  to  subscribe  to  the  armed 

neutrality,  Dec.  3,  1782.     Journal,  Dec.  3,   1782.     As  to  treaties  with  other 

powers. 
To  Livingston.     Notifying  of  treaty  of  peace,  Dec.  4,  1782.     (See  Journal,  Dec.;'), 

1782.) 
To  Dana.     Aunouuciag  treaty,  and  suggesting  that  he  announce  his  mission,  Dec. 

6,  12, 1782.     Journal,  Dec.  9,  1782,  as  to  future  relations  of  Britain  and  the 

United  States;  Jigreement  of  all  parties  to  armed  neutrality. 
Franklin  and  Jag  to  Dana.     Advising  him  to  notify  his  mission,  Dec.  12,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Announcing  signature  of  preliminaries;  Dana's  jiosition,  Dec. 

14,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  19,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
His  purchase  of  house  at  The  Hague  api)roved  by  Congress,  Dec.  27,  1782. 
To  Dumas.    Dutch  prospects  of  peace ;  armed  neutrality;  failure  of  bis  Dutch 

loan,  Jan.  1,  1783. 
Morris  to  Lmnklin,  Jan.  11,  1783. 
Morris  to  Adams,  Jan.  19,  1783. 
From  Dana,  Jan.  15,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  19,  1783, 

(See  Franklin  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Jan.  19,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.    Misforlunes  of  the  Dutch  ;  in  politics,  gratitude,,  etc. ;  are  danger- 
ous guides;  speaks  highly  of  Laurens,  Jan.  23,  1783. 
From  Dumas.    luviting  conference  with  Brantzen  as  to  peace,  Jan.  24,  1783, 


16  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Adams,  John — Continued. 

To  Dumas.     Declining  so  to  act,  Jan.  29,  1783. 
From  Dumas.  Jan.  30,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Damas,  Feb.  4,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Dumas.     Grieving  over  tlie  Dutch  position;  United  Stated  owe  no  thanks  for 
their  treaty  to  Vergennes ;  *  *  I  had  great  reasons  to  distrust  him,"  but  the  French 
minister  at  The  Hague  is  not  to  know  this,  Feb.  5,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Acknowledges  the  revocation  of  his  appointment  to  negotiate  a 
treaty  with  Great  Britian  ;  discusses  fishery  question  ;  importance  of  a  min- 
ister at  London;  we  should  send  first;  gives  his  views  as  to  qualifications ; 
thinks  Jay  and  Dana  are  not  to  be  excelled  in  qualifications,  Feb.  5,  1783. 
From  Livintjsion,  Feb.  13, 1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Feb.  18, 1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  4, 1783.  1 

(See  Dumas  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  6, 1783. 

To  Laurens.     English  views  as  to  the  peace,  Mar.  12, 1783. 
To  Vaughan.     It  was  well  for  England  to  have  made  peace  with  America  when 

8hedid,Mar.  12, 1783. 
From  Dana,  Mar.  1(3, 1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Mar.  26, 1783. 

(See  Laurens  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston .     Preparations  for  definitive  treaty,  Apr.  14, 1783. 
From  Livingston,  Apr.  14, 1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston.     As  to  salary  and  the  treaty  ;  regards  the  course  of  France  "  as 

in  the  highest  degree  generous  and  disinterested,"  Apr.  14, 1783. 
To  Dana.     Is  ready  to  go  back  to  Congress  ;  views  as  to  definitive  peace,  May  1, 

1783. 
To  Morris.     As  to  affairs  in  Holland,  May  1, 1783. 
From  Dana,  May  15, 1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     Advises' a  minister  to  England,  May  21,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Communicating  papers  and  information  as  to  definitive  peace; 

urges  a  minister  to  England,  May  24,  1783. 
Recommended  by  Jay  as  minister  to  England.     Jag  to  Livingston,  May  30,  17-3. 
Proposed  agreement  as  to  definitive  treaty,  June  1,  1783. 
From  Dana,  June  1, 1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Incloses  papers,  June  9,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Merits  and  claims  of  Holland;  declines,  however,  to  return  there 

as  a  residence,  June  16,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     As  to  European  politics,  June  23, 1783. 
To  lAvingston.     As  to  European  politics,  June  24, 1783. 

To  Livingston.     Definitive  treaty  not  likely  to  alter  preliminaries  ;  Shelburne  ad- 
ministration conducted  itself  with  fairness  and  sincerity  ;  not  so  its  successors, 
the  coalition  ministry,  which  he  condemns,  June  29, 1783. 
To  Livingston.    Visits  to  and  from  the  diplomatic  corps  ;  views  on  English  poli- 
tics, July  3,  1783. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  17 

Adams,  John — Coiitiuued. 

To  Livingaton.  Views  us  to  the  preliminary  articles  and  definitive  treaty,  July 
5,7,  1783. 

To  Livingston.  Justifies  signing  separate  peace,  and  says  that  the  substance  of 
the  preliminaries  were  communicated  before  signature  to  Vergenues  and  Ray- 
neval,  July  9,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     No  more  ujoney  to  come  from  Franco,  July  10,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Continues  to  distrust  France,  July  10,  11, 1783. 

To  Morris.     As  to  America's  solvency,  July  11,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Criticises  Franklin's  treaty  with  Portugal,  July  12,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Suggests  mission  to  Vienna,  July  13,  1783. 

To  Livingston.  Discusses  English  navigation  policy  and  other  matters,  July  14, 
17b3. 

To  Livingston.     Incloses  papers,  July  15,  1783. 

To  Livingston.  Mediation;  navigation  act;  confusion  of  English  politics,  July 
10,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Gives  his  views  as  to  definitive  treaty,  July  17,  1783. 

Franklin  and  Jaij  to  Hartley.     As  to  definitive  treaty,  July  17,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     His  views  as  to  confidence  in  France,  July  18,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     His  position  in  Paris  is  '^annihilation,"  July  18,  1783. 

His  views  as  to  Franco  dissented  from  by  Franklin  to  Livingston,  July  22,  1783. 

To  Livingston.    Affairs  in  Holland,  July  23,  25,  1783. 

To  Morris.     As  to  mode  of  procuring  money,  July  28,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     As  to  Dutch  finances,  July  28,  1783. 

From  Dana,  July  29,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Adams,  same  date.) 

To  Livingston.     As  to  Dutch  colonies  and  political  affairs,  July  30,  31,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Information  as  to  Portuguese  commerce,  Aug.  1, 1783. 

To  Livingston.  As  to  Russian  and  German  alliance  against  Turkey  ;  dislike  to 
remaining  in  Paris;  objects  to  not  being  in  the  commission  to  treat  with 
other  European  powers;  would  rather  "be  a  door-keeper  in  Congress  than 
remain  in  Paris,  as  I  have  done  for  the  last  five  months;"  speaks  of  "  Lord 
Sheffield,  with  his  friends  Deane,  Arnold,  Skeene,  and  Paul  Wentworth,"  as 
forming  a  party  against  us  in  London ;  that  England  is  on  the  verge  of  a 
convulsion,  Aug.  2, 1783. 

To  Livingston.  Laments  Franklin's  success  in  the  Swedish  treaty  (which  was 
subsequently  ratified  by  Congress)  ;  thinks  it  was  taken  improperly  out  of 
Dana's  hands ;  considers  Holland  to  have  been  deserted  by  France,  Aug.  3, 
1783. 

To  Livingston.  Views  as  to  Portugal  and? Spain  ;  probabilities  of  definitive  treaty. 
Aug.  10, 1783. 

To  Livingston.    Britain  proposes  simply  to  make  the  provisional  articles  defini- 
tive, but  declines  the  appearance  of  the  imperial  courts  as  mediators,  Aug.  10, 
1783. 
To  Livingston,    Political  affairs  in  France  ;  objects  (though  a  mistaken  assump- 
tion) to  Franklin  negotiating  treaties  with  Denmark,  Aug.  13,  1783. 
To  Gerry.    British  attempts  to  separate  France  and  the  United  States;  the  pro- 
visional treaty  to  become  definitive  ;  hopes  that  all  the  ministers  in  Europe 
(and  not  Franklin  only)  will  be  joined  in  commission  to  make  treaties; 
compliments  Jay,  and  complains  of  Franklin's  ascendency,  Aug  15, 17r3. 
To  Livingston.     Difficulties  as  to  treaty  with  Holland  ;  position  of  Vergennea, 

A.ug.  15, 1783. 
To  Congrcsfi.    Definitive  treaty  to  bo  signed  on  Sept.  3  ;  would  return  to  America, 
but  is  not  yet  recalled  from  Holland,  Sept.  1, 1783. 


18  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Adams,  John — Contiuuecl, 

To  Gerry.    Anuounciiig  signature  ;  gives  bis  views  as  to  foreign  ministers,  and 
questions  their  value  ;  *'  No  man  will  ever  be  pleasing  at  a  court  in  general 
who  is  not  depraved  in  bis  morals  or  warped  from  your  interests,"  Sept.  3, 1783. 
To  Congress.     Definitive  treaty  signed  on  tbe  4tb  instant;  mediation  of  imperial 
courts  not  accepted ;  regrets  that  tbe  United  States  commissioners  did  not 
agree  to  it,  Sept.  5,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Gives  bis  views  as  to  European  newspapers,  Sept.  8,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Acknowledges  ai)pointmeut  as  joint  commissioner  to  negotiate  com- 
mercial treaty  witb  Great  Britain,   and   proposes  it  be  extended  to  other 
countries,  Sept.  8,  1783. 
To  Gerry.    Pomp  and  expense  required  in  foreign  ministers ;  their  salaries  not 

more  than  sufficient,  Sept.  9, 1783. 
To  Congress.    Advising  authority  to  be  given  to  minister  at  Paris  to  negotiate 

with  foreign  powers,  Sept.  10,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     Vindicating  him  from  charge  of  lukewarmness  as  to  fisheries,  Sept. 

13,  1783. 
From  Morris,  Sept.  20,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Boudenot.    His  resignation  not  acted  on  by  Congress;  no  hurry  about  send- 
ing minister  to  England,  Nov.  1,  1783. 
From  Morris,  Nov.  5,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
Imprudence  of  his  attacks  on  France  in  conversations  in  Paris,  and  danger  likely 

to  accrue  to  alliance  from  same.    Franklin  to  Morris,  Dec.  25,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Negotiations  with  Prussia,  Mar.  2,  1784. 
To  Congress.     Obtaining  new  loan,  Mar.  2,  9, 1784. 
To  Congress.     As  to  announcement  to  European  sovereigns  of  iudepeudence  of  the 

United  States,  June  22,  1784. 
His  course  as  a  revolutionary  statesman,  §  4  /i. 
Adams,  Samuel — 

His  revolutionary  policy  and  services.     Introduction,  ^^  2,  4,  9,  11,  #,  135  a. 
His  opposition  to  Franklin.     Introduction,  ^  ^  135  a,  146. 
From  J.  Adams,  May  21,  1778. 

(See  J.  Adams  to  S.  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  J.  Adams,  July  28,  1778. 

(See  J.  Adams  to  S.  Adams,  same  date.) 
Adamses  and  Lees'  opposition  to  Washington  and  to  executive  government.     Intro- 
duction, ^M,  11,  IG,  209. 
Administrative  Statesmen  of  the  Revolution.     Introduction,  §  'Zff. 
Admiralty  affairs.     Burden  of  them  in  Europe  on  Franklin.     Introduction,  ^§ 

113,  118. 
Admiralty  courts,  practice  of.     Commissioners  to  Sartine  Aug.  13,  1778. 
Admiralty  decisions,  importance  of  uniformity  as  to.     Livingston  to  Luzerne,  Nov. 

21,1781.     Luzerne  to  TJvingston,  Dec.  11,  1781. 
Admiralty  judge,  to  be  appointed  by  commissioners  at  Paris.     Committee  to  Com- 
missioners, Apr.  24,  1776. 
Admiralty  judges  of  Cherbourg — 
From  Franklin,  May  16,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Admiralty  judges,  same  date.) 
Agents,  American,  letter  to,  in  London,  accompanying  the  petition  of  Congress  to 

the  King.    Franklin,  s  narrative  of  the  negotiations  in  London,  Mar.  22,  1775 
Alexander — 

To  Franklin.    As  to  position  of  the  United  States,  Dec.  15,  1781, 
From  Franklin,  in  reply,  Dec.  15,  1781, 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  1^ 

Alexander  -Contiuued. 

Confers  with  Hartley  as  to  peace.      Hartley  to  FranJdin,  Jan.  2,  1782. 
Note  of,  as  to  his  position,  inclosed  by  TJartley  to  Franklin,  Jan.  24,  1780. 
Algip:rs,  dangers  of,  to  connnerce.     Salva  to  FranJdhi,  Apr.  1,  1783.     Franklin  to  Liv- 

in(jston,  July  22,  178!]. 
Allen,  Ethan,  cruel  treatment  of;  note  to.  Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12, 1777. 
Allegiance — 

Oath  of;  certificates  granted  by  commissioners  at  Paris.     Commissioners  to  Con- 
gress, Sept.  17,  1778. 
Oath  of;  limitations  as  to  administering.     Jay  to  Franklin,  May  31,  1781. 
Practice  of  administering;  how  far  adojited  by  ministers.     Franklin  to  Jay,  Aug. 
30,  1781. 
Alll\nce  — 

Treaty  of,  with  France;  adoption  of.     Introduction,  ^  45. 
Treaties  of,  commonly  include  pledges  of  confidence.     Introdnction,  ^  121. 
Between  France  and  the  United  States;  duties  imposed  by  it.     ^S\S  109 _^. 
Dumas  will  endeavor  to  ascertain   whether  any  Enropean  power  will  form  an, 

with  the  Colonies.     Franklin  to  Dumas,  Dec.  19,  1775. 
With  France;  binding  character  of;  Gerard,  conference  with  Congress,  July  10, 

1779.     {^ae  France.) 
With  France;  fidelity  to,  pledged  by  Congress,  Jan.  14,  1779. 
With  France;   importance  of.     Adams  to   Vergennes,  May  7,  1780;   Vcrgennes  to 

Adams,  May  10,  1780. 
With  France ;  fidelity  to,  in  the  United  States.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  July  10, 

1780. 
Answer  demanded  to  proposition  of,  between  Holland  and  the  United  States. 

Adams  to  Franklin,  Feb.  20,  1781. 
Due  de  hi  Vanguyon  asked  as  to  advisability  of  i)roposiug,  between  Holland  and 
America.     Adams  to  Vauguyon,  Mar.  1,  1781. 
Alliance,  Ship— 

Troubles  as  to.     Franklin  to  Adams,  Apr.  8,  1779.  ' 
Delay  in  sailing  of.     Franklin  to  Adams,  Apr.  24,  1779. 
Measures  taken  for  relief  of  crew  of.     Franklin  to  Adams,  Apr.  21,  1779. 
Condition  of.    Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  May  3,  1779. 

Conspiracy  on  board;  difficulties  with  Captain  Laudais ;  plans  for  her  employ- 
ment.    Franklin  to  Marine  Committee,  June  2,  1779. 
To  carry  certain  supplies.     Franklin  to  Congress^  May  31,  1780. 
Differences  as  to  command  of.     Panl  Jones  to  Franklin,  June  27, 1780. 
Sails  for  the  United  States,  under  Landais.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9, 1780, 
Jones'  statement  as  to  his  action  in  reference  to  the  voyage.     Jones  to  Board  of 

Admiralty,  Mar.  13, 1781. 
Certain  questions  as  to,  answered.     Franklin  to  Lewis,  Mar.  17, 1781. 
Prize  money  due;  action  of  Congress  as  to.  Mar.  11, 1782. 
Accounts  of ;    resolution  of  Congress  as       Oct.  29,  1783. 
(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  Dec.  25,  1783.) 
(See  as  to  this  ship,  Franklin,  Jones,  Landais.) 
Amelia,  ship,  fitted  out  for  Congress.     Beaumarchais  to  Congress,  Feb.  28,  1777. 
America — 

Britisli  conquest  of,  impossible.     Livingston  to  Jay,  Ang.  26,  1780. 
Cause  of,  popular  in  Holland.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  4,  1781. 
Gun-ship  (so  called),  proposed  presentation  to  France.    Livingston  to  Adams,  Aug. 
29,  1782;    Luzerne  to  Congress,  Sept.  1,  1782;    Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Sept.  5, 
1782  ;    Vaudreuil  to  Luzerne,  Sept.  20, 1782. 
American  Armed  Vessels.     (See  Privateers.) 

Want  of  authority  over.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9,  1780.     (See  Privateers.) 


20  PEELIMINARY    INDEX. 

American  Commissioners,  dissensions  between ;  proceedings  of  Congress  as  to,  Sept, 

11,  1778 ff. 
American  Provisions,  call  for,  in  Europe.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  25,  1776. 
American  Seamen,  capture  of.    Commisdoiiers  to  Committee,  Feb.  G,  1777.     (See  Pris 

oners. ) 
Amsterdam — 

Kow  far  entitled  to  interfere  with  treaties.     Van  Berckel  to  Dumas,  Sept.  23,  1778. 

Negotiations  witb.     W.  Lee  to  Committee,  Oct.  15,  1778. 

Plan  of  treaty  witb.      W.  Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  25,  1779. 

Protest  of,  as  to  convention  of  neutral  powers,  July  1,  1780. 

Political  confusion  in.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Feb.  21,  1782.     (See  Dumas.) 

Bank  of,  memorial  as  to.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Sept.  26, 1782. 
Amphitrite,  The — 

Difficulties  of  sailing  of.     Introduction,  ^^  83, 

Delays  in  sailing  of.     Duine  to  Committee,  Jan.  20, 1777. 

Sailing  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb.  6,  1777. 

Explanation  of.     Id.,  Feb.  6,  1777  ;  Beaumarchais  to  Congress,  Feb.  28,  1777. 

Arrival  of.     Committee,  to  Commissioners,  May  9,  1777. 

Arrival  at  Portsmouth.     Committee,  to  Commissioners,  May  30,  1777. 

Return  voyage  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Nov.  30,  1777. 
Andre — 

His  taunting  squibs  on  American  statesmen.     Introduction,  §  21. 

Concerned  in  British  tournament  at  Philadelphia  in  1778.     Introduction,  ^  23. 
Anmours — 

Appointed  French  consul  for  North  Carolina.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Jan.  24,  1780. 

Appointed  as  French  consul  for  Maryland  and  Virginia.     Congress,  Mar.  16,  1784. 
Appleton,  from  Morris,  Apr.  16, 1782. 

(See  Morris  to  AppJeton,  same  date.) 
Aranda — 

Notice  of.     Introduction,  §  89. 

Audience  of  American  commissioners  with,  Jan.  4, 1777. 

From  Franklin  as  to  attitude  of  Spain,  Apr.  7,  1777. 

From  A.  Lee,  Dec.  9, 1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Aranda,  same  date.) 

From  A.  Lee,  July  1,  1778. 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Aranda,  same  date.) 

From  A.  Lee.     Asked  to  present  memorial  to  Spain,  Juno  6,  1779. 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Aranda,  same  date.) 

Conferences  with,  as  to  Mississippi  boundar3\     Jag  to  Livingston,  Nov.  17, 1782. 
Arendt,  Colonel.     Recommended  by. 

Franklin  to  Congress,  May  22,  1780. 
(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  May  11,  1780.) 
Argenteau  to   Franklin.     As  to  treaty  with  the   Emperor  of    Germany,  July   30; 

Sept.  28, 1784. 
Ariel — 

Sails   for   the  United  States  under  Paul  Jones.     Franklin   to    Congress,  Aug.  9, 
1780. 

Arrival  of.    L^ovell  to  Franklin,  Mar.  9,  1781. 

Forced  by  storms  to  return  and  to  refit.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Dec,  3,  1780. 
''Armed  Neutrality"— 

Object  of  it  to  build  uj)  commerce  of  neutrals.     Introduction,  ^S  93. 

Probable  extension  of     Franklin  to  Morris,  J nxm  ^,  17S0.     (Note    as    to,  iu   same 
letter,) 

Progress  of  principles  of     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9,  1780. 

Progress  of,     Carmiohael  to  Congress,  Aug.  22, 1780. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  21 

"Armed  Neutrality  " — Continued. 

Progress  of.     Carmichael  to  Congress,  Sept.  9,  1780. 

Action  of  Congress  as  to,  Oct.  5,  1780. 

Declaration  of  the  States-General  acceding  to  tlie.    Adams  to  Congress,  June  15, 

1781. 
Papers  in  rciferenco  to.     Adams  to  Congress,  Feh.  1,  1781. 

Acceptance  of,  by  the  United  Stat«\s.    Adams  to  States-deneral,  Mar.  8, 1781 ;  Adams 
to  GaJlliziu,  Mar.  8,  1781  ;  Adams  to  Sapheren,  Mar.  H,  1781 ;  Adams  to  Eliren- 
swurd,  Mar.  8,  1781. 
Primarily  directed  against  Britain.     Dana  to  Congress,  Oct.  15,  1781. 
Action  of  Congress  as  to.     Livingston  to  Dana,  Oct,  22,  1781. 
Accession  of  Germany  to.     Adams  to  Congress,  Dec.  29,  1781. 
Suggestions  of  general  adoption  of.     Adams''  Journal,  Dec.  9,  1782. 
Views  as  to.     Adams  to  Dumas,  Jan.  1,  1783. 
Congress,  while  approving  of,  does  not  feel  at  liberty  now  to  join.     Proceedings  of 

Congress,  May  21,  1783. 
No  foreign  minister  of  the  United  States  has  power  given  to  accede  to  ;  its  prin- 
ciples, however,  are  sound,  but  the  dehnitive  treaty  should  not  be  delayed 
to  enforce  them.     Livingston  to  Congress,  June  3,  1783. 
Not  desirable  that  Congress  should  engage  in  snch  a  league,  and  that  all  powers 

respecting  it  be  withdrawn.     Congress,  June  12,  1783. 
Position  of  Madison  and  Hamilton  as  to.     (See  Introduction,  ^S  4/,  4g.) 
To  engage  in,  not  desirable.     liesolution  of  Congress,  Oct.  29,  1783. 
Arms.     (See  Supjjiies.) 

Forwarding  of,  to  America.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  May  25,  1777. 
Arafy.     (See  War,  state  of.) 

British,  destination  and  sentiment  of  the.     A.  Lee  to  CoWew,  Feb.  13,  177G.     (See 

Introduction,  §^S  150,  151.) 
British,  numbers  and  destination  of.     A.  Lee  to  Colden,  Feb.  14,  177C.     (See  Intro- 
duction, H  150,  151.) 
Americciu,  condition  of,  in  Feb.,  1777.    Coynmiliee  to  Commissioners,  Feb.  19,  1777. 
Bad  effects  on,  of  depreciation  of  currency.      L^oveU  to  Commissioners,  Mar,  24, 

1778. 
Half- pay  m  easnre  and  other  questions,  as  to.     Laurens  to  Waslnngion,  May  5,  1778. 
Progress  of.     J^ovell  to  Franldin,  June  20,  1778. 
Strength  of.     J.  Laurens  to  Vergennes,  March  29,  1781. 
Disbanding  of,  advised.     Morris  to  Congress,  May  15,  1783. 
Arnold,  Benedict — 

Treachery  of.     Franklin  to  Searle,  Nov.  30,  1780. 

Amount  of  his  bribe.     Franklin  to  Adams,  Apr.  7, 1781  ;  Franklin  to  La  Fayette, 

May  4,  1781,  and  note  thereto. 
Bad  bargain  made  by.     Franklin  to  La  Faifeite,  May  14,  1781. 
Cordial  reception  in  England.     Franklin  to  lAvingston,  Mar.  4,  1782. 
Arnold,  Matthew,  his  opinion  of  Franklin.     Introduction,  §  114. 
Arnot,  de,  from  Iforris,  Mar.  18,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  d^ Arnot,  same  date.) 
Artillery  of  the  United  States.    Strength  of.     J,  Laurens  to  Vergennes,  Mar.  29, 1781. 
Arundel,  will  give  General  Schuyler  information  about  artillery.    Franklin  to  Charles 

Xee,  Feb.  11,1776. 
Asgill's  case — 

Livingston  to  Franklin,  May  30,  June  23, 1782. 

{See  Livingston  to  Dana,  May  29,  Dec.  17,  1782;  Livingston  to  Fraiikl in,  May  2^, 
1782,  with  note;  Franklin  to  Oswald,  July  28,  1782;  Vergennes  to  Washing- 
ton, July  29,  1782,  inclosing  letter  from  Lady  Asgill). 


22  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Asgill's  case — Continued. 

Referred  to  Congress.      fFashington  to  Luzerne,  Oct.  25,  1782  ;    Washington  to  Con- 
gress, Oct.  25,  1782;  Livingston  to  Dana,  Dec.  17,  1782. 
(See,  further,  Luzerne  to  Carlton,  Nov.  9,  1782;   Livingston  to  Franklin,  Nov.  9, 
1782;  Zifsrerwe  to  Washington,  Nov.  12,  1782.) 
Washington  To.     Releasing,  Nov.  13,  1782;  Livingston  to  Adams, 'Nov.  18,  1782; 
Washington  to  Vergennes,  Nov.  21,  1782. 
Atrocities,  British,  in. war.     (See  Britain.) 
Austin,  J.  L.  — 

Public  services  of.     Introduction,  ^  195. 

Introduction  of     Commissioners  to  Congress,  Sept.  22,  1778 

From  Franklin,  Oct.  20,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Austin,  same  date.) 
Bache,  Mrs. — 

From  A.  Lee,  Mar.  19,  1776. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Mrs.  Bache,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  2,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Bache,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  3,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Mrs.  Bache,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  13,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Bache,  same  date.) 
Mr.  and  Mrs.     From  Franklin,  Juno  19,  1782. 
(See  Franklin  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Bache,  same  date.) 
Balme,  Captain,  Letter  introducing,  to  President  of  Congress.    Dean  to  President  of 
Congress,  Oct.  17,  1776. 
Recommended  to  Congress.    Franklin  to  Congress,  Jan.  20,  1777. 
Bancroft,  Edward— 

Character  of.     Introduction,  §  196. 

Deane  recommended  to  confer  with.     Committee  to  Deane,  Mar.  3, 1776. 
Closely  allied  with  the  most  respectable  of  the  minority  in  both  houses  ;  not  par- 
ticularly   obnoxious  to  the  majority;  his  expenses  in  visiting  Paris  paid. 
Deane  to  Committee,  Aug.  16, 1776. 
Informed  by  Franklin  as  to  position  of  the  United  States  as  to  independence, 
with  authority  to  publish  certain  resolves.     Franklin  to  Bancroft,  Apr.  16, 
1778. 
Charged  by  A.  Lee  with  being  a  stock-jobber.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Apr.  26,  1778. 

(See  Introduction,  §  196.) 
Connection  with  peace  negotiations,  June  9, 1782.    Reported  in  Franklin^s  journal 

under  date  of  July  1,  1782. 
Confers  with  Adams  during  peace  negotiations.     Adams^  journal,  Nov.  20, 1782. 
Bancroft,  G. — 

Views  of,  as  to  A.  Lee's  differences  with  Franklin.    Introduction,  $  145  ;  as  toEd" 
ward  Bancroft.    Introduction,  §  196. 
Bank  of  North  America — 

Scheme  of,  approved.     Franklin  to  Morris,  Nov.  5,  1781. 
Organization  of     Morris  to  Governors,  Jan.  2,  8,  1782. 
Barbarities,  British,  during  the  war.    (See  Britain,  etc.) 
Barbary  powers— 

Question  of  treaty  with.    Sartine  to  Vergennes,  Sept.  21,1778. 
Proposition  as  to.    Vergennes  to  Commissioners,  Sept.  27,  1778. 
Commissioners  have  no  power  to  treat  with.    Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  Oct.  1778. 
Negotiations  with.    (See  Proceedings  of  Congress,  Feb.  24,  1779.) 
Barbadoes,  complaints  from.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  1776. 


PRIOLIMINAKY    INDEX.  23 

Barclay,  David — 

Urges  Fiankliu  to  use  bis  inflnenoo  toward   bringing  about  a  reconciliation. 

FriDikVurs  narration  of  ilie,  negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Note  to  Franklin,  making  appointniciit  ior  discussion  ofreconciliatory  measures. 

Franklin^s  narration  of  negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Discussions  of  reconciliatory  measures  between  Franklin  and,  Ihid. 
Barclay,  Thomas — 

Agency,  criticisms  on.     Morris  to  Franklin,  Sept.  30,  1782. 
Appointed  consul.    Vergcnnes  to  Franklin,  Oct.  3,  1782. 
His  arrival.     Franklin  to  Carmichael,  Jan.  23,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  Mar.  4,  1782.) 
Appointed  commissioner  to  adjust  accounts  in  Europe.     Livingston  to  Bardaij, 
Nov.  26,  1782. 
(As  to  Deane's  account,  see  Franklin  to  Morris,  Mar.  30,  1782.) 
From  Morris,  Dec.  5,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Barclay,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  12,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Barclay,  same  date.) 
Barry,  Captain,  course  of.     Franklin  to  Morris,  Mar.  4,  30,  1782. 
Basonrine  &  Co.,  application  for  a  frigate  and  privateer's  commission.     Commis- 
sioners to  Sartine,  May  IC,  1778. 
Basden's  case.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Aug.  15,  1780. 
Babson,  Captain,  re-imbursed  by  France  for  losses.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb. 

28, 1778. 
Bayonne,  made  a  free  port  to  tbe  United  States.     Calonne'to  La  Fayette,  Jan.  5, 1784. 
Beaumarchais — 

His  personal  cbaracteristics.     Introduction,  ^  56. 

Estimates  of  bis  character,  Ihid.,  ^^^  57,8. 

Skill  in  secret  diplomac^^,  Ibid,,  ^  59. 

Impresses  Louis  XVI  as  to  intervention  in  America,  Ibid.,  $  GO. 

"Rodrigues,  Hortalez"  &  Co.,  Ibid.,  \^  61. 

Question  bow  far  bis  sbipments  were  on  bis  own  account,  Ibid.,  ^  62. 

Congressional  settlement  of  1779,  Ibid.,  ^  63. 

Contract  of  1783,  Ibid.,  ^  64. 

'•Lost  million."     Franklin's  efforts  at  solution,  Ibid.,  §  65. 

Silence  of  Freucb  ministry,  Ibid.,  '^  66. 

Appeal  to  Congress  in  1787,  Ibid.,  ^  07. 

French  ministry  admit  payment  to  Beaumarchais,  Ibid.,  $  68. 

Chiim  on  its  merits,  Ibid.,  ^  69. 

Question  as  to  secret-service  money.  Ibid.,  ^  70. 

Settlement  in  1831,  Ibid.,  §  71. 

Relations  to  Vergenues,  Ibid.,  ^  55. 

From  Vergennes,  Apr.  2(5, 1776. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Beaumarchais,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  May  23, 1776. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Beaumarchais,  same  date.) 
To   A.  Lee  (Mary  Johnston.)    Engages  to  forward  military  supplies  to  Cape  Fran- 

^'ois,  and  asks  for  tobacco  in  return,  June  6, 1776. 
Acceded  to  by  A.  Lee,  June  14,  1776. 
Forms  a  company,  as  Hortalez  &  Co.,  Juno  26,  1776. 
To  Deane.     Inviting  confidential  correspondence,  July  18, 1776. 
From  Deane,  July  20, 1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Beaumarchais,  July  20, 1770.) 
From  Deane,  July  24, 1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Beaumarchais,  same  date.) 


24  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Beaumarchais — Continued. 

To  Covgress.     (Under  name  of  Hortalez  &  Co.)  expresses  sympathy   with  the 

United  States;  is  forwarding  supplies;  expects  American  produce  in  return  ; 

French  Government  as  such  bound  to  maintain  neutrality;  caution  against 

spies,  Aug.  18, 177(3. 

His  acts  those  of  the  ministry.     Deane  to  Committee  Aug.  18, 1776, 

To  Committee.     Will  furnish  all  supplies  and  protect  American  vessels,  Aug.  18, 

1776. 
From  Deane,  Aug.  19,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Beaumarcliais,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     European  sympathy  for  Congress;  hostile  measures  against  Portu- 
gal advised,  Sept.  15,  1776. 
(See  Deane  to  Morris,  Sept.  17, 1776.) 
Supplies  furnished  by  ;  statement  as  to  consideration  expected  for.    A.  Lee  to  Con- 
gress, Oct.  ],  1776. 
The  United  States  indebted  to,  for  supplies.     Deane  to  Committee  Nov.  29,  1776. 
Presses  earnestly  on  Congress  his  claim  for  settlement,  Dec.  1,  1776. 
Has  conducted  negotiations  with  the  French  court  for  Deane.     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec. 

3. 1776. 
"Aifairs  with,  were  settled  by  Mr.  Deane,  whom  Mr.  Hortalez  found  here  on  his 
return,  and  with  whom  all  the  arrangements  were  afterwards  made."    A.  Lee 
to  Committee,  Dec.  31,  1776. 
(See  same  to  same,  Jan.  3, 1777.) 
To  Congress.     Supplies  sent  by,  in  ship  Amelia,  Feb.  28, 1777. 
Other  supplies  previously  sent.     Ibid. 
Remittances  expected  in  return.     Ibid. 

Claim  on  the  Amphitrite  recognized.     Commissioners  to  Berard  Frercs,  Dec.  24, 1777. 
Settlemei\o  of  claims  with.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb.  16, 1778. 
Resolution  of  Congress  as  to  settlement  with,  Apr.  13,  1778. 

Response  to  A.  Lee's  statement  as  to.    Committee  to  Commissioners,  May  14,  15,  1778. 
Settlement  with,  as  to  the  Thcrese.     Commissioners  to  Beaumarcliais,  Sept.  10. 1778  ; 
Commissioners  to  Vergevnes,  Sept.  10,  1778.     (See,  as  to  settlement,  Franldin  to 
Beaumarcliais,  Sept.  10,  1778.) 
Plan  for  settlement  with.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Dec.  2, 1778. 
A.  Lee's  criticism.     Lee  to  Committee,  Jan.  5,  1779. 
Gerard's  explanation  of.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Feb.  9,  1779. 
Conference  with  French  minister  as  to,  July  10,  1779. 
Bills  drawn  in  favor  of,  paid.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9,  1780. 
Claim.     Morris  to  Franklin,  May  23,   29,  1782 ;  Beaumarcliais  to  Morris,  June  3, 

1782;  Franklin  to  Morris,  Aug.  12,  1782. 
Claim,     Payment  of  bills  drawn  in  his  favor,     if oms  to  Luzerne,  Jan.  13,  1783. 
Bedaulx — 

To  Dumas.     Inquiries  as  to  the  fate  of  his  nephew,  Apr.  28,  1781. 
Death  of  nephew.     Livingston  to  Dumas,  Nov.  28,  1781. 
Belligerents,  duties  of,  as  defined  in  Revolution.     Introduction,  ^$  100,  180. 

Fraudulent  use  of  friendly  flags.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Jan.  18,  1782. 
Benson,  complaint  against,  for  seizing  Danish  ship  Providence.     Vergennes  to  Frank- 
lin, Apr.  23,  1782. 
Berengeh,  from  Adams,  June  8,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Berenger,  same  date.) 
Berkenhout  (alleged  spy),  notices  of.     Introduction,  $§  150,  204. 
From  A.  Lee,  Dec.  3,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Berkenlwut,  same  date.) 

Addresses  A.  Lee  as  to  reconciliation,     A.  Lee  to  Vergennes,  Jan.  3,  1779;  Vergennes 
to  A.  Lee,  Jan.  4,  1779. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  25 

Berkenhout—  Conti  n  ued. 

From  A.  Lee.     Inlbrnied  tliat  Amoricnn  independence  is  a  conditiou  of  peace,  Jan. 
5,  1779. 
(See  J.  Lee  to  Berkenhout,  Jan.  7,  1779;  as  to  fiirtlicr  correspondence  with  A. 
Lee,  see  Introduction,  "^S^S  150,  204.) 
Berlin.     A.  Lee's  mission  to  (See  A.  Lee). 

Bkkmuda,  probable  fortification  of,  by  Britain.     Deane  to  Committee,  Ang.  18,  177G, 
Seizure  of,  advised  and  complaints  from.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  177C. 
Should  be  seized  and  fortified.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  8,  177G 
BERNSTOli-F,  from  Franklin,  Dec.  22,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Bernstojf,  same  date.) 
Bkrsolle's  case.     Sarline  to  Commission,  June  (5,  I,'),  1778. 
BiGELOW,  J.,  notices  of  Franklin  at  Passy.     Introduction,  ^^S  125. 
Bingham — 

From  Deane,  Oct.  17,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Bingham,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Oct.  25,  177C. 

(See  Deane  to  Bingham,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Feb.  1,  1777. 

(See  Committee,  to  Bingham,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  June  5,  1777. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Bingham,  same  date.) 
From  Lorell,  Mar.  2,  1778. 

(See  Lovell  to  Bingham,  same  date.) 
Value  of  his  correspondence.     Lovell  to  Bingham,  Mar.  2,  1778. 
From  Lovell,  Apr.  16,  1778. 

(See  Lovell  to  Bingham,  same  date.) 
From  ioi-en,  Apr.  26,  1778. 

(See  Lovell  to  Bingham,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  May  14,  1778. 

(See  Committee  to  Bingham,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Sept.  28,  1778. 

(See  72.  fl".  iee  and  Lovell  to  Bingham,  same  date.) 
Bishop,  Roman  Catholic,  in  America.      (See  Franklin  to   Vergennes,  Dec.  15,  1783.) 

(See  Catholic  Church.) 
Black  Prince,  ship- 
History  of.    Franklin  to  Vergennes,  June  18,  25,  1780. 
Loss  of.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  10,  1780. 
Black  Princess,  ship,  commission  of,  recalled.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Aug.  15, 1780. 
Blake  et  al.     From  Franklin,  Mar.  13,  1779. 
(See  Franklin  to  Blake  et  al.,  same  date.) 
Blockade,  British,  vigilance  of.     Harrison  et  al.  to  Commissioners,  Feb.  2,  1777. 
Blome,  Danish  minister,  complains  of  breach  of  neutrality  by  American  ])rivateers. 
Blome  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  6,  1782. 
(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Mar.  3,  1782.) 
Bollan,  Wm.,  presents  petition  of  1775.     Fra-nklin  to  Thomson,  Feb.  5,  1775. 
Bon  Homme  Richard,  ship — 

Exploits  of.     Introduction,  ^^  190^. 

Questions  in  relation  to.  Franklin  to  Lewis,  Mar.  17,  1781. 
Prize  money  due;  action  of  Congress  as  to,  Mar.  11,  1782. 
As  to  prize  money.     F'ranklin  to  Livingston,  Aug.  12,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  Jan.  6,  1783.) 
Settling  of  accounts  of.     Act  of  Congress,  Oct.  29,  1783. 
(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  Dec.  25,  1783.) 
BoNVOULOiR,  mission  of,  to  America.     Introduction,  ^  38. 


26  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Boston — 

Motion  to  remove  the  army  from,  by  Lord  Chatham.    Franlclin's  narative  of  nego- 
tiations at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 

Effect  of  evacnatiou  of.     lutrodiiction,  ^^^  12-24. 

Frigate,  claims  for  protection  of,  in  France.     Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  May  16, 
1778. 

Charges  against.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  June  3,  1778. 
BouDiNOT,  President  of  Congress— 

To  Sir  G.  Carleton.     Asking  for  extradition  of  certain  forgers,  Aug.  1,  1783. 

To  Franklin.     As  to  Swedish  treaty,  Aug.  13,  15,  Sept.  17,  1783. 

To  Adams.     As  to  his  resignation  and  other  events,  Nov.  1,  1783. 

To  Commissioners.     Approving  definitive  treaty,  Nov.  1,  1783. 

To  Van  Berckel.     Welcoming  him  on  his  arrival,  Oct.  24,  1782. 
BouiLLE,  commanding  at  Windward  Islands,  complains  of  unlawful  seizures  by  Amer- 
ican privateers.     Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Feb.  18,  1782. 
Bounty — 

Public  lands  should  be  promised  to  soldiers  as.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  Dec. 
1,  1776:  Deane  to  Jaij,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
Boundaries — 

American,  position  of  France  as  to,  in  1778.     Vergennes  to  Gerard,  Mar.  29,  1778. 

Position  to  betaken  in  respect  to,  in  1782.     Livingston  to  FranJclin,  Jan.  7,  1782. 

Western,  action  of  Congress  in  respect  to.    Aug.  20,  1782. 

Instructions  to  peace  commissioners  as  to.     Congress,  June  6  and  29,  1781.     (See 
Peace  Commissioners.) 
Bows  AND  Arrows.     Franklin  advises  use  of.     Franklin  to  C.  Lee,  Feb.  11,  1776. 
Brazil.     Whale  fishery  near.     (See  Whale  fisherg). 
Bribery,  British.     Instances  of.     Introduction,  ^$  7-36. 
Bridgen,  from  Franklin,  Oct.  2,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Bridgen,  same  date.) 
Britain,  Great — 

Dissatisfied  with  treaty  of  1763.     Introduction,  ^^  33. 

Ministry  of,  during  revolution  ;  character  of.     Ibid.,  ^  27. 

Revolutionary  analogies  of.     Ibid.,  vS  8. 

Arrogance  of.     Ibid.,  §  21. 

Cruelty  of,  in  the  war.     Ibid.,  $  22. 

Profligacy  and  frivolity  of.     Ibid.,  $  23. 

Abandonment  of  loyalists  by      Ibid.,  §  24. 

False  information  of  campaigns  of.     Ibid.,  $  151. 

War  policy  of.     A.  Lee  to  Mrs.  Bache,  Mar.  19, 1776. 

Affairs  in.    A.  Lee  to  Golden,  Apr.  15, 1776 ;   W.  Lee  to  Dumas,  Sept.  10, 1776  ;  A.  Lee 
to  Dumas,  Sept.  17, 1776. 

Reported  demand  of,  for  surrender  of  American  vessels.     Committee,  to  Deane, 
Oct.  1, 1776. 

Reports  of  reconciliation  with  ;   bad  effect  in  France.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov. 
28,  1776. 

Coast  of,  unprotected.     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 

Government  of ;  enlistment  of  soldiers  in.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Jan.  17, 
1777. 

Army  of,  condition  of,  in  Feb.,  1777.     Harrison  et  al.   to   Binghan..,  Feb.  1,  1777  ; 
Harrison  et  al.  to  Commissioners,  Feb.  2,  1777. 

Oppressive  action  of.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Mar.  18,  1777. 

Policy  of,  to  America.     Carmichael  to  Dumas,  Apr.  28,  1777. 

Makes  complaints  to  France  of  accommodations  to  American  privateers.     Deane 
to  Morris,  Aug.  23,  1777. 

Barbarous  conduct  of,  in  war.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Oct.  14,  1777. 


I 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  27 

Britain,  Great — Coutiuued. 

Recouciliatiou  with,  without  itidepeudouce  denounced.  Congress,  Nov.  '24,  1777. 
(See  Introduction,  \S  22). 

Requisites  of  conciliation  with.  Commi>isioners  to  Committee,  Feb.  28,  1778;  Frank- 
lin to  Correspondent  at  Brussels,  July  1,  1778. 

Minister  of,  at  Paris  ordered  to  leave  at  once.  A.  Lee  to  Commissioners,  Mar.  19, 
1778. 

No  separate  peace  should  be  made  with.    Commissioners  to  Committee,  July  29, 1778. 

Commissioners  of,  in  America.  Impolitic  action  of.  Franklin  to  Hartley,  Oct.  20, 
1778. 

Misconduct  of,  during-  war.     Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  Jan   1,  1779. 

Recognition  by,  of  independence.  Conference  with  French  minister  as  to,  July 
10,  1779. 

Peace  with;  plan  of.     Jay  to  Franklin,  Aug.  14,  1779. 

Peace  commissioners  of.     Proceedings  of  Congress,  Sept.  28,  1779. 

Whale  fleet  of.     Plan  for  capture  of.     Adams  to  HnnUngton,  Oct.  19,  1779. 

Negotiations  for  peace  with.  (See  Proceedings  of  Congress,  Feb.  24;  Mar.  17, 19> 
22,24;  May  8,  12,  22;  June  3,  17,  19,  24;  July  1,  12,  17,  22,  24,  31;  Aug.  3, 
13;  Sept.  9,  11,  25,  28;  Oct.  9,  13,  14,  1779.) 

Barbarities  of.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Feb.  2,  1780. 

Obstacles  to  peace  with.     Adams  to  Congress,  June  2,  1780. 

Losses  of,  at  sea.     Report  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  Apr.  8,  1780. 

Sudden  declaration  of  war  by,  against  Holland.  Carmichacl  to  Committee,  Jan. 
27,  1781. 

Further  propositions  expected  through  Abb^  Hussey  to  Spain  from.  Carmichael 
to  Committee,  Jan.  4,  1781. 

Declares  war  against  Holland.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  4,  1781. 

Resentment  felt  in  Holland  against.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  5,  1781. 

Seizures  at  sea  without  declaration  of  war  likened  to  piracy.  Franklin  ioDumas, 
Jan.  18,  1781. 

Peace  between  Holland  and,  not  probable.    Adams  to  Congress,  Feb.  15,  1781. 

Atfairs  in.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Feb.  22,  1781, 

Financial  system  of,  compared  with  France.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  29, 1781. 

Taxes  in.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  29,  1781. 

Importation  of  goods  of,  into  United  States  in  neutral  bottoms.  Adams  to  Con- 
gress, June  26,  1781. 

Spoliations  of.  Official  information  as  to;  called  for.  Livingston  to  Governors  of 
States,  Nov.  12,  1781. 

Exclusion  of  goods  of.     Livingston  to_^Congress,  Dec.  26,  1781. 

Abandonment  of  loyalists  in  the  United  States  by.  Livingston  to  Franklin,  Dec.  16, 
1781 ;  Livingston  to  Adams,  Dec.  26,  1781.     (See  also  Introduction,  (\  24.) 

Ungenerous  and  barbarous  conduct  of,  during  the  war.  Livingston  to  Adams,  Jan. 
9, 1782 ;  Livingston  to  Dana,  Mar.  3,  1782.     (See  Introduction,  $  22. 

Change  of  ministry  in.  Franklin  to  Morris,  Apr.  8,  1782  ;  Franklin  to  Livingston, 
Apr.  8,  1782. 

Intrigues  of,  with  France  for  a  separate  peace.  Franklin  to  Hartley,  Apr.  13, 
1782  ;  Franklin  to  Adams,  Apr.  13,  1782. 

Excesses  of,  in  war.     Livingston  to  Dana,  May  27,  1782. 

Change  of  administration  of,  as  affecting  peace  negotiations.  La  Fayette  to  Liv- 
ingston, June  25, 1782. 

Spoliations.     Report  of,  to  bo  sent  to  ministers  abroad.     Congress,  Sept.  10,  1782. 

Cruelties  of,  in  war.     Livingston  to  Dana,  Dec.  17,  1782.     (See  Introduction,  ^  22.) 

Trade  with,  to  rest  on  reciprocity.     Livingston  to  Jay,  Jan.  6,  1783. 

Importance  of  a  minister  being  sent  to.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Feb.  5, 1783. 

Propositions  of  commercial  conciliation  by.     Hartley  to  Franklin,  Mar.  12,  1783. 


28  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Britaix,  Great — Coutiuued. 

Peace  witb.     Negotiations  for.     (See  Franhlin.) 
British  TRADE,  restrictive  character  of.     Laurens  to  Thomson,  Mar.  28^  1784;  Lau- 
rens to  Congress,  Apr.  24, 1784. 
Order  of  coiiiicil  of,  as  to  Amcricau  sbips,  May  14,  1783. 

Campaigns  of.     A.  Lee's  erroneous  predictions  as  to.     (See  Introduction,  §151.) 
Broglie,  Count — 

Probable  reference  to,  by  A.  Lee  as  a  leading  foreign  general  suited  for  command. 

A.  Lee  to  Golden,  Feb.  13, 1776. 
Recommended  by  Deane  for  American  general-iu-chief.     Deane  to  Committee,  Dec. 

6, 1776. 
Characteristics  and  position  of.     (Introduction,  ^'^  76,77.) 
Broglie,  Prince.     Entrance  of,  in  American  service  at  end  of  war.     Livingston  to  La 

Fayette,  Nov.  2,  1782.     (See  Introduction,  $  78.) 
Brooke,  gives  plan  to  ministry  for  aittacking  Canada,  June  3,  1776. 
Brosse,  Captain  de  la.     Letter  introducing.     Deane  to  Washington,  Sept.  15,  1776; 

Deane  to  Committee,  Sept.  15, 1776. 
Brown,  J.,  from  Jones,  Mar.  13,  1781.  i 

(See  Jones  to  Brown,  same  date.) 
From  FranJcHn,  Aug.  6,  1781. 
(See  Franllin  to  Brown,  same  date.) 
Burgos.    A.  Lee  detained  at.     A.  Lee  to  Grimaldi,  Mar.  5,  1777. 

Burgoyne.     Erroneous  predictions  as  to  movements  of.    A.  Lee  to  Golden,  Apr.  15, 
1776;  Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  Yah.  \,   1777;  Commissioners  to  Committee, 
Feb.  5,  Feb.  11,  1777.     (See  Introduction,  §  151.) 
Defeat  and  surrender  of.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  18,  31,  1777. 
Nature  of  battle  and  importance  of  victory  over.     (Note  to  letter  of  Committee  to 

Commissioners,  Oct.  18,  1777.) 
Effect  of  surrender  of,  on  Continent  of  Europe.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Jan.  .5,  1778; 

Louis  XVI  to  Charles  III,  Jan.  8,  1778. 
Good  effects  abroad  of  surrender  of.     W.  Lee  to  Congress,  Feb.  7,  1778. 
Exchange  of     Franklin  to  Congress,  Nov.  5, 1781 ;  FrauMin  to  Adams,  Nov.  7,  1781. 
Burke,  Edmund— 

His  view  of  Washington's  military  genius.     Introduction,  $  12. 
His  efforts  as  a  peace-maker.    Ibid.,  §  197. 
Interest  taken  by,  in  Laurens's  case.     I  hid.,  ^  173. 
Tribute  of,  to  Franklin.     Ibid.,  §  123. 

Declines  to  present  petition  of  1775.     Franklin  to  Thomson,  Feb.  5,  1775. 
To  Franklin.    Laurens's  case;  prospects  of  peace,  Feb.  28,  1781. 
Cabal  against  Washington.     Introduction,  $  11. 
Cabarrus — 

Correspondence  with  Jay,  reported  by.     Jay  to  Livingston,  Apr.  28,  1782. 
Character  of.     Carmichael  to  Congress,  Nov.  17,  1781. 
Calonne,  to  La  Fayette,  announcing  certain  free  ports,  .Jan.  5,  1784. 
Calvert,  claims  of.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Nov.  1,  1783. 
Camden,  Lord,  his  views  and  speeches.     Reported  by  Franklin  in  narrative  of.  Mar. 

22,  1775. 
Campaigns,  British.     A.  Lee's  predictions  as  to  errors  in,  and  their  misleading  effects 
A.  Lee  to  Mrs.  Bache,  Mar.  19,  177  6. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Golden,  Feb.  13,  Apr.  15,  1776.     Introduction,  $  151.) 
Canada — 

Negotiations  in  resj)ect  to.     (See  Franklin'' s  journal,  beginning  Mar.  21  and  end- 
ing July  1,  1782,  under  date  of  July  1,  1782.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  29 

Canada — Continued. 

Liability  to  parties  in,  for  provisions  supplied  or  injuries  sustained  during  the 
war.     Morris  to  Cotn/reax,  Jan.  21,  1784. 
Cannon,  forwarding  of,  to  A.merica.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  May  25,  1777. 
Capellen  (See  Van  der  CapeUen), 
CAPTAiNSof  American  armed  vessels.     From  Commissioners,  Nov.  21  1777. 

(See  Franklin,  Dean,  and  Lee  to  captains  of  American  armed  vessels,  same  date.) 
Captures  on  iiiaii  seas.     Action  of  Congress  as  to,  May  22,  1778. 
Cauibs,  revolt  might  be  incited  among.     Dean  to  Jay,  Dec.  ;i,  177G. 

(See  Dean  to  Committee,  Oct  8,  177G;  same  to  Bingham,  Oct.  17,  1776.) 
Carleton — 

From  Morris,  Aug.  20,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Carleton,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne  (two  letters),  Nov.  9,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Carleton,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  March  24,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Carleton,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Apr.  II,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Carleton,  same  date.) 
From  Boudinot,  Aug.  1,  1783. 
(See  Boudinot  to  Carleton,  same  date.) 
Carlisle,  Lord — 

As  to  Britisb  occupation  of  Philadelphia.     Introduction,  ^  12. 
Ox)iniou  of  desertion  of  loyalists.     Ibid.,  ^  24. 
Carmichael,  William — 

His  position  as  a  diplomatist.     Introduction,  $  171. 
Opinion  as  to  damage  done  by  theft  of  A.  Lee's  papers.     Ihid.,  §  150. 
Goes  to  Holland  on  business.     Deane  to  Dumas,  Oct.  1)    1776. 
To  Dumas.    Announcing  arrival,  Oct.  22,  1776. 
To  Dumas.     Sending  papers,  etc.,  Oct.  27,  1776. 

To  Committee.    Narrating  his  efforts  in  Amsterdam  ;  position  of  Holland  ;  French 
sympathy  with  America;  state  of  European  finances;  value  of  American  prod- 
ucts; position  of  Russia;  work  that  could  be  done  by  privateers;  recommends 
Prevet  and  Grand,  Nov.  2,  1776. 
Declines  to  go  to  Berlin  as  secretary  to  A.  Lee.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  June  11, 
1777. 
-^  A.  Lee's  charges  against.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Apr.  14,  May  9,  1778. 
To  Congress.    Accepts  as  secretary  to  Commissioners,  June  17,  1778. 
A..  Lee's  objections  to.     A.  Lee  to  Congress,  Sept.  10,  19,  1779. 
\ Elected  secretary  of  legation  to  Spain.  -  Proceedings  of  Congress,  Sept.  28,  1779. 
To  Congress.    Acknowledges  appointment  as  secretary  to  Spain,  Oct.  25,  1779, 
Instructions  from  Jay  to,  Jan.  27,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  27,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.     Reports  affairs  in  Madrid,  Feb.  15,  18,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Reports  his  position,  Feb.  19, 1780. 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  22, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Carmichael,  sama  date.) 
From  Jay,  Feb.  25, 1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
His  views  as  to  A.  Lee,  given  by  the  latter;  is  denounced  by  A.  Lee,     A.  Lee  to 

Adams,  March  13, 1780. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  31, 1780. 
(See  Franklin  to  Carmichael, sume  date.) 


30  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Carmichael,  William— Contiuued. 

From  Adams,  Apr.  8, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.     Information  as  to  Spanish  military  movements,  Apr.  22,  1780, 

From  Adams,  May  12, 1780. 
(See  Adams  to  Cai'michael,  8a>uie  date.) 

To  Congress.     Informatio:i  as  to  Spanish  affairs,  May  28, 1780. 

From  Franllhi,  June  17,  1780. 
(See  Franklin  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
"^  To  Congress.     Affairs  at  Madrid  ;  Cumberland  arrives  as  British  agent ;  friendly 

services  of  French  minister  at  Madrid;  financial  difficulties,  July  17,  1780, 
'^To  Congress.     Financial  difficulties  of  Spain;  Cumberland,  British  agent,  is  at 
Madrid;  armed  neutrality;  progress  of  the  war;  little  prospect  of  money 
from  Spain ;  Aug.  22,  1780. 

To  Cony  I  ess,  Gardoqui  appointed  to  succeed  Miralles ;  Spanish  failure  in  an 
attemj^t  to  negotiate  a  loan  of  36,000,000  livres  ;  inability  of  Government  to 
loan  money  to  the  United  States;  naval  movements;  Cumberland  continues 
at  Madrid;  progress  of  armed  neutrality;  position  of  Portugal,  Sept.  9,  1780. 

To  Committee.  Fiuancial  position  in  Spain;  Cumberland's  mission  ;  prospects  of 
campaign  ;  foreign  ministers  in  Madrid  friendly  to  Britain  ;  detention  of  Gar- 
doqui;   affairs  in  Holland,  Nov.  28,  1780. 

To  Committee.  State  of  affairs  in  Spain  ;  no  monej^  to  be  procured  there  ;  proba- 
bilities of  campaign  ;  Cumberland  still  at  Madrid  ;  Sept.  25, 1780. 

To  Committee.   Current  European  news,  Dec.  19,  1780. 

To  Committee,  Propositions  on  the  part  of  England  expected  through  Abb6 
Hussey;  war  declared  agaiust  Holland  by  England  ;  Russia  expected  to  re- 
sent the  declaration  ;  ill  success  of  the  English  fleets;  Spain  has  promised 
a  loan,  Jan.  4,  1781. 

To  Franklin.     Introducing  Cabarrus,  Feb.  6,  1781. 

To  Committee.  Holland  disposed  to  prosecute  the  war  vigorously  ;  Germany  offers 
to  mediate  with  Russia  ;  Spain  and  France  dislike  the  offer  of  mediation,  and 
will  remain  friends  to  America  ;  policy  of  Sjiain  towards  America  and  prepara- 
tions for  war ;  Jay  promised  part  of  the  loan  to  pay  bills  due  ;  debt  contracted 
for  |30,000  or  |40,000;  Gardocjui  will  embark  soon;  Cumberland  working 
to  injure  America;  Count  d'Estaiug  expected  to  visit  America;  Vergen- 
nes  in  bad  health,  Jan.  29,  1781. 

To  Commitlee.  Affairs  in  Europe;  offer  of  the  Emperor  of  Germany  to  mediate; 
conduct  of  the  Russian  ambassador  ;  Portugal  will  not  join  the  armed  neu- 
trality; affairs  in  England;  Cumberland  demands  a  passport ;  fleet  of  Spain, 
Feb.  22,  1781. 

To  Franklin.  Visit  of  Prince  Marcerau  ;  intrigues  of  the  Lees;  opposition  in 
Congress  to  Washington  and  Franklin  ;  as  to  matters  of  literary  interest,  Feb. 
28,  1781. 

To  Committee.  Affairs  in  Europe  ;  Cumberland  still  at  Madrid  ;  Gardocjui  to  em- 
bark soon  ;  Spain  jealous  of  the  States  on  the  Mississippi  and  Ohio ;  corre- 
spondence through  the  mails  gives  information  to  the  various  courts,  Mar. 
4,  1781. 

To  Committee.  Departure  of  Cumberland  certain  ;  reported  offer  of  mediation 
by  Emperor  of  Germany;  French  fleet  expected  to  reach  America  in  July; 
loan  for  1,000,000  florins  opened  in  Holland  by  Adams ;  large  convoy  of  pro- 
vision vessels  for  America  and  the  Indies  go  with  the  British  fleet ;  bad  effect 
of  the  mutiny  of  the  Penns\'lvania  troops.  Mar.  11,  1781. 

To  Franklin.    Cumberland's  position;  rumors  of  mediation.  Mar.  12,  1781. 

To  Franklin.    As  to  financial  difficulties,  Mar.  30,  1781. 

From  Franklin,  Apr.  12,  1781o 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  31 

Cakmiciiahl,  William — Contiuucd. 

(Sec  Lrunklin  to  Carinichael,  stimo  date.) 
To  Franklin.    Cumbcrlaiicl'amovenionts;  deplores  Fraukliu^s  resignation  ;  tonclies 

some  philosophical  qnestions;  political  prosi)cuts,  Apr.  "20,  17bl. 
To  Commitfee.    Affairs  in  Spain  ;  heavy  drafts  on  Jay,  who  is  withont  funds ;  post- 

oflico  espionage,  May  25,  26,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Removal  of  Necker;  mediation,  June  2,  1781. 
From  Lovell.     June  15,  1781. 

(See  LovcU  to  Carinichael,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  Spanish  politics,  June  20,  1781. 

To  Congress.     Naval  preparations  in  Spain;  mediation;  Jay's  jmsition  as  to  ac- 
cepting bills,  Aug.  10,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  24,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Carmicltael,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     As  to  atfairs  in  Spain,  Sept.  28,  Oct.  5,  1781. 

To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Spain  ;  postponement  of  negotiations  with  the  United 
States;  immense    expenses  and   reduced    means  of  Government ;  court  in- 
trigues; character  of  Francis  Cabarrus  ;  foreign  affairs,  Nov.  17,  1781. 
To  Livingston.     Political  relations  of  Spain,  Dec.  20, 1781. 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  20,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Carniichael,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.    As  to  affairs  in  Spaiu  ;  advances  made  by  Spain  to  Congress,  Dec. 

24,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  23,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
«OTo  Livingston.     As  to  political  affairs  in  Europe,  Feb.  18.  27, 1782. 

Legation  obliged  to  protest  bills;  current  political  events.     Franklin  to  Livings- 
ton, Apr.  14,  1782. 
Bills  taken  up  by  Franklin.     Franklin  to  Jay,  Apr.  22,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  May  1,  1782, 

(See  Livingston  to  Carmichael.  same  date.) 
From  Congress.     Not  advisable  that  he  should  be  commissioned  to  Portugal,  May 

8,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     State  of  affairs  in  Spain,  June  12,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  July  6,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston.     Advice  as  to  public  affairs  and  as  to  his  salary,  July  6,  1782. 
"^To  Livingston.     As  to  affairs  in  Spain,  July  8,  22.  Sept.  8,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  12,  1782. 

(See  IJvingsion  to  Carmicltael,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Siege  of  Gibraltar ;  probable  failure  of;  speculations  as  to  peace  ^ 

friendly  relations  with  other  powers,  Sept.  29,  1782. 
From  Florida  Blanca,  Oct.  14,  1782. 

(See  Florida  Blanca  to  Carniichael,  same  date.) 
A  To  Livingston.     Political  atfairs  in  Europe,  Oct.  29,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  28,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Treaty  of  1782;   Spain's  dissatisfaction;  financial  difficulties  of 

Spain ;  diplomatic  reception,  Dec.  30,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Want  of  friendliness  in  Spanish  court ;  position  of  Gardoqui,  Jan. 

18,  1783. 
From  La  Fajjeile,  Jan.  20,  1783. 

(See  La  Faijettc  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
■•^o  Livingston.     R(!ceived  formally  at  Madrid  as  charge  d'affaires;  value  of  La 
Fayette's  presence,  Feb.  21,  1783. 


32  PKELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Carmichael,  William — Continued. 
From  Morris,  Mar.  4,  1733. 

(See  Morris  to  darmichael,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     His  position  at  court;  views  as  to  foreign  politics,  Mar.  13,  1783. 
From  Livingston,  May  7,  1783.     (See  Livingston  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
Is  relied  on  by  Jay  to  make  up  accounts  of  Spanish  mission.     Jay  to  Livingston, 

June  1,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Gives  information  as  to  political  relations  of  Spain,  July   19, 

'^2,  1783. 
From  Gorsdorff,  July  28,  1783. 

(See  Gorsdorff  to  Carmichael,  same  date.) 
Gives  information  as  to  proposed  Saxon  mission,  July  29,  Aug.  20,  1783. 
Narrates  circumstances  of  his  presentation  to  King  of  Spain,  Aug.  30,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  Hartwell's  case  and  injuries  at  Havana,  Feb.  27,  1784. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  appointment  of  Gardoqui  as  Spanish  minister,  Oct.  12, 1784. 
Caurington.     From  Morris,  June  6, 1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Carrington,  same  date.) 
Carroll.     From  Franklin,  June  2, 1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Carroll,  same  date.) 
Castries,  supplants  Sartine  in  the  marine  department.     Franklin  to  Sartine,  Dec. 

3, 1780. 
Catherine  II— 

Her  policy  towards  America.     Introduction,  $§  92^. 

(See  Dana,  liussia,  Armed  Neutrality.) 
British  efforts  to  bribe.     Introduction,  ^  7. 

Aversion  to  American  cause.     Dana  to  Livingston  (note).  May  2, 1783. 
Catholic  Bishop.     (See  Bishop.) 
Catholic  Church.     A  request  to  Congress  for  settlement  of  a  bishoj)  in  the  United 

States.     Pope's  Nuncio  to  Franklin,  July  28, 1783. 
Ceremony,  order  of  in  negotiations  and  conferences.     Livingston  to  Congress,  Nov.  3, 

1781;  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Nov.  4,  1781. 
Ceronio,  his  misconduct  as  agent.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Oct.  7,  1777. 
Cessation  of  hostilities— 

Declaration  of,   Jan.  20,  1783.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  Jan.  21,  1783;  Adams  to 

Livingston,  Jan.  22,  1783. 
Proclamation  of,  Feb.  14, 20,  1783. 

Declared  as  final.     Dighy  to  Livingston,  Carleton  to  Livingston,  Apr.  6,  1783;  Liv- 
ingston to  Congress,  Apr.  10,  1783. 
Proclaimed  finally  by  Congress,  Apr.  12,17-3, 
Charles  III,  King  of  Spain — 
From  Louis  XVL,  Jan.  8,  1778. 

(See  Louis  XVI  to  Charles  LIT,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Appointing  Gardoqui  as  minister,  Sept.  25,  1784. 
Charleston — 

Capture  of.     Huntington  to  Adams,  July  30,  1780. 
British  elation  at  taking  of.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9,  1780. 
Evacuation  of.     Greene  to  Livingston,  Dec.  19,  1782. 
Chastellux.     From  Franklin,  Apr.  G,  1782. 
(See  Franklin  to  Chastellux,  same  date.) 
(And  see  Introduction,  §  78.) 
Chatham — 

Policy  of  federal  alliance  with  America.     Introduction,  ^  32. 
His  denunciation  of  British  cruelty  in  America.     Ibid.,  ^  22. 

Interviews  with  Franklin  on  the  state  (»f  America  aud  recouciliatory  measure^, 
^ranklin's  narrative  of  negotiations  in  London,,  Mar.  22,  1775, 


I 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  33 

Chatham — Continued. 

Plan  of   reconciliation.     Franklin's  narrative  of  negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22, 

1775. 
Notes  I'or  discourse  with,  on  li is  plan,  Franklin's.     Franklin's  narrative  of  negotia- 
tions at  London,  Mar.  22,  177.5. 
His  motion  to  remove  the  troops  from  Boston;   introduces  Franklin  into  Parlia- 
ment.    Franklin's  narrative  of  negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Plan  of  reconciliation.     Franklin  to  Thomson,  Feb.  5,  1775. 
Chaumoxt — 

His  relations  to  Franklin.     Introduction,  ^S^S  125^'. 

Introduction  of  his  son.     Thid.,  v^  128. 

Will  introduce  Deanc  to  persons  friendly  to  America.     Committee  to  Deane,  Mar.  3, 

1776. 
Agreement  with,  as  to  line  of  packets,  Apr.  — ,  1777.     See  Packets. 
Reflections  on.     J.  Lee  to  Committee,  June  1,  1778. 
From  Adams,  Sept.  15,  1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Clianmoni,  same  date.) 
Declines  to  receive  rent  for  house  at  Passy.      Chaumont  to  Adams,  Sept.  18,  1778. 
References  to.     Deane  to  Congress,  Oct.  12,  1778. 
Proposed  loan  by.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Mar.  17,  1779. 
From  Frariklin,  Dec.  11,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Chaumont,  same  date.) 
Insolvent  condition  of.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  Aug.  12,  1782. 
Exceptionable  conduct  as  to  Bon  Homme  Richard.     Livingston  to  Jay,  Jan.  6, 1783. 
Chesapeake  Bay — 

British  blockade  of,  in  spring  of  1777.     Llarrison  et  al.  to  Bingham,  Feb.  1,  1777; 

Harrison  et  al,  to  Commissioners,  Feb.  2,  1777. 
Naval  action  on.     Destouches  to  T^nzerne,  Mar.  19,  1781 ;    Washington  to  Luzerne, 
Mar.  31,  1781  ;  Lovell  to  Franklin,  Mar.  31,  1781. 
Chezaulx,  French  consul  at  Bergen,  recognition  of  services  of.     Lovell  to  Franklin, 

July  11,  1780. 
Cholmondely,  Lord,  visits  Franklin.     (See  Franklin's  journal,  Mar.  21,  1782,  under 

date  of  July  1,  1782.) 
Church,  Dr. — 

Objections  to.     A.  Lee  to  Colden,  Feb.  14,  1776. 
His  disloyalty.     Introduction,  '^^  205. 
Civil  list,  estimate  of,  in  1784.     Morris  to  Jefferson,  Feb.  25,  1784. 
Civil  wars — 

Analogies  of.     Introduction,  '^S  8. 
Position  of  intermediaries  in.     Introduction,  '^S  197 
Clark.    From  Morris,  May  30,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Clark,  same  date.) 
Clinton,  General — 

Biographical  notice  of,  (see  note  to).     Franklin  to  Dumas,  June  5,  1780. 
Criticism  on  letter  of.     Franklin  to  Dumas,  June  5,  1780 ;  Adams  to  Dumas,  June 
6,  1780. 
(See  Adams  to  W.  Lee,  July  20,  1780.) 
Clinton,  Governor.     From  Livingston,  Oct  22,  1781. 

(See  Liinngston  to  Clinton,  same  date.) 
Clothing— 

Forwarded  to  America.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  May  25,  1771. 
For  troops.     (See  SujyjiHes.) 
Coffin.     From  Franklin,  Mar.  23,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Coffin,  same  date.) 
Coinage.     Morris  to  Congress,  Jan.  15,  1782. 
3   WH 


34  PKELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Golden — 

From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  13,  1776. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Golden,  same  date,  and  see  Introductiou,  ^  141=) 
From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  14,  1776. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Golden,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Apr.  15,  1776. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Golden,  same  date.) 
As  to  correspondence  with,  see  Introduction,  ^  141. 
COMMAXDKRS  OF  VESSELS.     From  Franklin,  June  22,  1778. 

(See  Franldin  to  Gommanders  of  vessels,  same  date.) 
Commerce,  American — 

Condition  of.     Beanc  to  Dumas,  Sept.  11,  1776. 
Free  from  duties  at  Leghorn.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  26,  1776. 
Free  in  Spain,  France,  and  Tuscany.     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
Commerce,  British — 

Restrictions  on.     Laurens  to  Thomson,  Mar.  28,  1784. 
Commerce,  company  of,  eiideavoriug  to  bring  about  negotiations  between  England 

and  Holland.     Adams  to  Gongress,  Jan.  15,  1781. 
Commerce,  French,  papers  as  to.    Morris  to  Congress,  Apr.,  16.  1784. 
Commercial  agents — 

Resolution  of  Congress  as  to,  Feb.  9,  1778. 
Advice  as  to.     Adams  to  GommiUee,  May  24,  1778. 
Commercial  preferences,  none  to  be  given  superior  to  those  given  to  France. 

Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Sept.  3,  1784;   Vergennes  to  Franklin,  Sept.  9,  1784. 
Commercial  treaties  — 

Instructions  of  Congress  as  to.  May  7,  1784. 

(See  Treaty  of  Gommerce.) 
With  European  powers;  ministers  at  Paris  authorized  to  negotiate.     Congress, 
Oct.  29,  1783. 
Commercial  treaty  with  Britain— 

Importance  of.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Feb.  5,  1783. 

{See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  Mar.  12,  1783,  and  see  Introduction,  <5>\3  31,  32.) 
Views  of  Fox  favorable  to.     Laurens  to  Livingston,  Apr.  5,  10,  1783. 

(See,  however,  Introduction,  §^  31,  32.) 
Project  and  failure  of.     Madison  to  Jefferson,  May  13,  1783  ;  Madison  to  Randolph 

Sept.  13,  1783. 
Authority  to  negotiate  given.     Adams,  Franklin,  aiidJay,  to  Hartley,  Sept.  7, 1783; 
sajne  to  Congress,  Sept.  10,  1783. 
Commerce,  treaty  of,  with  France;  adoption  of.     Introduction,  §  4.5. 
Commissary-General  of  Purchases.     From  Morris,  Oct.  4,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Commissary-General,  same  date.) 
Commissioners  in  Paris — 

Proceedings  of  Congress  as  to  relations  of,  Jan.  20,  Mar.  27,  Apr.  15,  30,  May  3, 

22,  June  8,  1779. 
From  Committee,  Oct.  17,  1776.  J 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.)  ^ 

From  Committee,  Dec.  21,  1776. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
Pledge  of,  as  to  separate  peace,  Feb.  2,  1777. 
From  Committee,  Feb.  2,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Feb.  17,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Feb.  19,  1777. 

(See  Co7nmittee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  B^^ 


Commissioners  in  Paris— Continued. 
From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  26,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  May  2,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  May  1),  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  ^.  Zee,  May  27,  1777. 

(See  ^.  //ce  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  May  30>  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  June  8,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  June  13,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
Froui  J.  Zee,  June  15,  1777. 

(See  J.  Zee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  June  2(5,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  CommissionerSy  same  date.) 
From  ^.  Lee,  June  28,  1777. 

(See  ^.  iee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  July  2,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  ^.  Zee,  July  6,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes,  July  10,  1777. 

(See  Fergennes  to  Commissioners,  saniu  date.) 
From  Committee,  Aug.  7,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  (two  letters),  Oct.  6,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Oct.  18,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Oct.  31,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Nov.  8,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Dec.  1,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Dec.  2,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  same  date  ) 
From  Committee,  Jan.  12, 1778. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissioners,  HSiUie  date.) 
From  Committee,  Jan.  21, 1778. 

(See  Committee  to  Commissjowers,  same  date.) 
From  (?emr(Z  Feb.  2, 1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  CoHiwiissionej's,  same  date.) 
From  Gemr^Z,  Mar.  17, 1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Lovell,  Mar.  24,  1778. 

(See  Lovell  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  ioveZ?,  Apr.  16,  1778. 

(See  Lovell  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Lovell,  Apr.  30,  1778. 

(See  Lovell  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 


36  PRELIMINARY    INDEX, 

Commissioners  in  Paris— Continued. 
From  Committee,  May  14,  1778. 

(See  E.  H.  Lee  and  Lovell  to  Commissioners,  same  date) 
From  Vergennes,  May  15,  1778. 

(See  Verfjennes  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  May  15,  1778. 

(See  B.  E.  Lee  and  Lovell  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
Plan  of  reducing  expenses  of.     J.  Adams  to  S.  Adams,  May  21,  1778. 
From  Sartine,  June  6,  1778. 

(See  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Jones,  June  16,  1778. 

(See  Jo«es  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  June  21, 1778. 

(See  22.  if.  Xee  et  at.  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Sartine,  July  14,  1778.) 

(See  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  same  date,) 
From  Sartine,  July  29,  1778. 

(See  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Jones,  Aug.  15,  1778. 

(See  JoHes  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Jones,  Aug.  15,  1778. 

(See  tTowes  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Sartine,  Aug.  16,  1778. 

(See  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Lzard,  Aug.  25,  1778. 

(See  /^^ar(?  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
Dissensions  between.     (See  Introduction,  ^^^S  106,  12G,  149;  and  see  Congress  under 

date  of  Sept.  22,  1778. 
From  Sartine,  Sept.  16,  1778. 

(See  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Sartine,  Sept.  21,  1778. 

(See  Sat  tine  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes,  Sept.  24,  1778. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
iTrom  Vergennes,  Sept.  27,  1778. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  5arf ine,  Oct.  7,  1778. 

(See  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Ambassador  of  Naples,  Oct.  8,  1778. 

(See  Ambassador  of  Naples  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  ^Tarfiwe,  Oct.  19,  1778. 

(See  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Sartine,  Oct.  26, 1778. 

(See  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Oct.  27,  1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  Commissionej's,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes,  Oct.  30,  1778. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes,  Oct.  31,  1778. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Nov.  4,  1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  CommJss/o»(^>'S, same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Nov.  10,  1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX,  37 

Commissioners  in  Paris— Coutinued. 

From  Sartine,  Nov.  1*3,  1778. 

(See  Sari'uic  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Nov.  13,  1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Sartine,  Nov.  14,  1778. 

(See  Sarline  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Nov.  20,  1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Dec.  18, 1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  Cow »i/6*s/o«ers,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Jau.  12, 1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Commissioners, aiimG  date.) 
From  Sartine,  Jan.  13, 1779. 

(See  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  Aug.  14,  1779. 

(See  InstruGtions  of  Congress  for  making  peace  with  Great  Britain,  same  date.. 
From  Oswald,  Nov.  4, 1782. 

(See  Oswald  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Strachey,  Nov.  5, 1782. 

(See  Strachey  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Jau.  14,  1783. 

(See  DrtHrt  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  i^V/^  Herbert,  Feb.  18,  1783. 

(See  i^i^^  Herbert  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  25,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  April  21,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Comynissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Grand,  Maj^  10,  1783. 

(See  Grand  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  i«  Fayette,  May  12,  1783. 

(See  La  Fai/ette  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  28,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  31,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Hartley,  Jiiue  1,  1783. 

(See  Hartley  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Hartley,  Juue  14,  1783. 

(See  Hartley  to  Commissioners,  sauie  date.) 
From  Congress,  June  16,  1783. 

(See  Congress  (or  Boudinot)  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  June  17,  1783. 

(See  Laurens  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  June  20,  1783. 

(See  Laurens  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Hartley,  Aug.  29,  1783. 

(See  Hartley  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
Commissioners  of  Accounts.     From  Morris,  Sept.  4,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
Commissioners  in  Paris — 
From  Hartley,  Sept.  4,  1783. 

(See  Hartley  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 


B8  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Commissioners  in  Paris— Contiuned. 
From  Congress,  Oct.  29,  1783. 

(See  Congress  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
From  Mifflin,  Jan.  14,  1784. 

(See  Mifflin  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
Commissioners  to  Negotiate  Peace,     (See  Peace  Commissioners.) 
Commissions- 
Fox-  war  vessels  requested.     Deane  to  Commiitee,  Nov.  9,  1776. 
Blank,  to  cruise  against  Englisli  ships  should  be  sent,     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3, 
1776. 
Committee— (Under  this  head  is  included  all  Congressional  Committees  correspond- 
ing on  foreign  aifairs) — 
From  Dumas,  May  14,  1776. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  June  3,  1776. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  June  3,  1776.) 
To  Deane.    Military  operations  and  state  of  the  country,  Aug.  7,  1776. 
From  Dumas,  Aug.  10,  1776, 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane^  Aug.  18,  1776, 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Beaumarchais,  Aug.  18,  1776. 

(See  Beaumarchais  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Sept.  1, 1776. 

(See  Dumas  to  Commiitee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Sept.  11,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Oct.  1,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 

To  Deane.     Current  politics ;  causes  of  defeat  at  Long  Island  ;  state  of  campaign  ; 

need  of  supplies;  need  of  French  aid;  Oct.  1,  1776. 
To  Deane.     Structure  of  commission ;  William  Hodge  is  bearer,  and  is  commended ; 

Oct.  2,  1776. 

From  Deane,  Oct.  8,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Oct.  17,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Deane.    Two  resolves  of  Congress  inclosec],  appointing  A.  Lee  in  Jefferson's 

place,  and  ordering  eight  liue-of-battle  ships  to  be  bought,  Oct.  23,  1776. 
To  Deane.     Stating  that  committee  is  reconstituted  as  composing  Jay,  John- 
ston, Morris,  R,  H.  Lee,  Hooper,  and  Witherspoon,  Oct.  24,  1776. 
From  Deane,  Oct.  25,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  CarmichaeJ,  Nov.  2,  1776. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  6,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  9,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  26,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  27,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 


PRELIMTxXARY    INDEX.  39 

Committee — Continued. 

From  Deane,  Nov^  '28,  1776. 

(Sec  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  29,  1770. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  29,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Dec.  1,  1770. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Dec.  3,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Dec.  6,  1770. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Franllin,  Dec.  8,  1776. 

(See  Franklin  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  7Jf  a«e,  Dec.  12,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners  in  Paris.     Condition  of  country;  plan  of  future  operations; 
movements  of  General  Howe  ;  importance  of  favorable  French  action  ;  plan 
of  loan,  Dec.  21,  1776. 
To  same.      Importance  of  Frencli  assistance ;  proposed  embassies  to  European 

courts;  want  of  ships,  Dec.  30,  1776, 
From  A.  Lee,  Dec.  31,  1776. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Coynmittee,  same  date.) 
To  Captain  Hammond.     Directions  for  his  voyage,  Jan.  2,  1777. 
From  J.  Lee,  Jan.  3,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  4,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Jan.  17,  1777. 

(See  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Jan.  31,  1777. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Bingham.     Conduct  of  Captain  Patterson  ;  want  of  ships  of  the  line  ;  British 

losses  in  the  Jerseys,  Feb.  1,  1777. 
Ho  Commissioners.     Dauoor  of  British  naval  supremacy;  necessity  of  military 

supplies;  enemy's  difficulties  in  Jersey,  Feb.  2,  1777. 
From  Deane,  Feb.  6,  1777. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Feb.  0,  1777. 

(See  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  11,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  14,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.Lee,  Feb.  18,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.)    • 
To  Commissioners.     Progress  of  campaign  ;  importance  of  French  aid  ;  question 
of  sending  frigates  as  convoys  ;  stoppage  of  letters  ;  supposed  friendliness  of 
Spain,  Fel).  19,  1777. 
From  Deane,  Feb.  27,  1777. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin  and  Deane,  Mar,  4,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  and  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 


40  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Committee— Continued. 

From  A.  Lee,  Mar.  8,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin  and  Deane,  Mar.  12,  1777. 

(See  Franktin  and  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Mar.  18,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Apr.  2,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date. ) 
From  Dnmas,  Apr.  12,  1777. 

(See  Dnmas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Statement  of  condition  of  campaign  ;  approval  of  dividing 
•envoys  among  courts;  improved  state  of  the  army's  future  prospects,  May  2, 
1777. 
To  same.     Introducing  Paul  Jones  and  commending  his  services  ;  authorizing  the 
purchase  of  a  frigate  whicli  Jones  is  to  command  ;  he  is  to  be  under  direc- 
tion of  Commissioners,  May  9,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  May  13,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Arrival  of  Amijhitrite,  but  her  capture  on  her  return  trip  ;  im- 
portance of  loan  from  France ;  advantages  to  France  and  Spain  from  a  war 
at  this  time  with  Britain,  May  30,  1777. 
From  Dumas,  May  16,  1777. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin  and  Deane,  May  25,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  and  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin  and  Deane,  May  26,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  and  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  June  11,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.    Progress  of  campaign  and  its  hopefulness ;  barbarity  of  enemy, 

June  13,  1777. 
From  Dumas,  June  14, 1777. 

{See.  Dumas  to  Co  mm  i^fee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Predatory  excursions  of  enemy;    his  movements  in  Jersey, 

Juue  18,  1777. 
To  same.     Retreat  of  enemy  to  Amboy;  importance  of  friendship  with  Dutch, 

June  26,  1777. 
To  same.     British  evacuation  of  New  Jersey  ;  commissions  sent  to  Izard  and  Lee, 

July  2,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  July  29, 1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date). 
To  Commissioners.     Loss  of  Ticonderoga;  British  naval  movements  on  Delaware, 

Aug.  7,  1777. 
From  Dumas,  Aug.  22, 1777. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  sa,me  date.) 
From  Deane,  Sept.  3, 1777. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Sept.  8, 1777. 

(See  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Sept.  9, 1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee, ^ame  date.) 
From  Deane,  Sept.  10,  1777. 

(See  Deane  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Lzard,  Oct.  6,  1777. 

(See  Izard  to  Committee,  same  date.) 


A 


PKELIMINARV    INDEX.  41 

CoMMiTTKE — Coiitiuued. 
From  J.  Lee,  Oct.  (3, 1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.      Progress  of  campaign  of  Gates  and  Burgoyue ;  favorable  au- 
spices; battle  of  Braiidywine  and  British  occupation  of  Philadelphia;  impor- 
tance of  Prussian  alliance;  weakness  of  American  naval  forces;  need  of  for- 
eign maritime  aid,  Oct.  C,  1777. 
To  same.     Difficulty  in  pledging  land  as  security  for  foreign  loans;  promised  re- 
ception of  '*  Irish  noblemeu"  to  equal  rank ;   interest  on  loans  will  be  faith- 
fully paid,  Oct.  6,  1777. 
From  Z)Mwms,  Oct-.  11,1777. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  sume  date.) 
To  Commissiouers.     Victory  of  Gates  over  Burgoyue  Oct.  7;  objectiou  to  British 
goods  being  protected  by  French  bottoms  ;    regrets  at  not  being  able  to  find 
employment  for  certain  French  officers,  Oct.  IH,  1777. 
To  mme.    Burgoyne's  surrender;  repulse  of  British  at  Red  Bank;  importance  of 

acknowledgment  of  American  independence  in  Europe,  Oct.  31,  1777. 
To  same.     Announcing  bills  on  them  drawn  by  Henry  Laurens,  President  of  Con- 
gress, Nov.  8,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  Nov.  27, 1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  sa,me  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Nov.  30,  1777. 

(See  FranJcUn  to  Deane  and  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  same.     Difficulty  in  arranging  for  foreign  officers,  and  particularly  for  Cou- 
dray  ;  his  dissatisfaction ;    return  to  France  of  officers  who  were  not  contented 
with  their  position ;   Congress  has  done  for  them  all  in  its  power,  Dec.  1, 1777. 
To  same.     Progress  of  campaign;  battle  of  Germantown  ;  Wasliingtou's  army  at 
Valley  Forge;   efforts  made  to  raise  money;  necessity  of  foreign  loan;  .diffi- 
culty in  forwarding  American  produce;  hopes  of  aid  from  Prussia ;  advan- 
tages of  intercepting  British  Chinese  fleet,  and. of  cruising  on  African  coast  ; 
approves  plan  for  building  frigate  and  purchasing  cannon,  Dec.  2,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee  (two  letters),  Dec.  8,  1777. 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Dec.  16,  1777. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Dec.  18,  1777. 

(See  Izard  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Dec.  18,  1777. 

(See  Commissioners  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  24,  1777. 

(See  Adams  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Jan.  5,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Jan.  15,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Disappointment  at  loss  of  dispatches  sent  by  Captain  Folger; 

inquiring  into  Folger's  character,  Jan.  IG,  1778. 
To  same.     Burgoyne's  array  at  Boston;  Howe  at  Philadel^jhia,  Jan.  21,  1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  10,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  15,  1778. 

(See  A  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Feb.  16,  1778. 

(See  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  same,  Feb.  28,  1778. 

(See  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Zee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 


42  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Committee— Contiuned. 

From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  28, 1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Apr.  5,  1778. 

(See  A.  Jjce  to  Committee,  same  date.") 
From  A.Lee,  Apr.  8,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Apr,  14,  1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  J.  Lee,  Apr.  14,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  .1.  Xfe,  Apr.  26, 1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Bingham.     Foundering  of  Reprisal  and  Captain  Wiekes  and  of  loss  of  Lexing- 
ton; correspondence  apt  to  be  intercepted  and  corrupted,  Mar.  2,  1778. 
To  Commissioners.     Monetary  difficulties  in  the  States;  loss  of  dispatches,  Mar. 

24,  1778. 
To  Biiujham.     As  to  accounts  and  position  of  campaign,  Apr.  IQ,  1778. 
To  Commissioners.     Stating  Bingham's  authority  to  draw  bills  on  Commissioners, 

Apr.  16,  1778. 
To  Bingham.     British  parliamentary  action;  issue  by  enemy  of  a  forged  docu- 
ment purporting  to  come  from  Washington,  Ai)r.  26,  1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  May  9,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.    Anxiety  as  to  information  from  Paris,  Apr.  26,  1778. 
To  Dumas.     As  to  relations  with  Holland,  May  14,  1778. 

To  Commissioners.  Improved  condition  of  affairs;  activity  of  British  emissaries  ; 
repulse  of  British  compromise  ;  high  approval  of  treaties  with  France  ;  Com- 
missioners authorized  to  give  up  the  11th  and  12th  articles;  regret  at  mis- 
conduct of  officers  of  American  vessels,  May  14,  1778. 
To  same.  Difficulty  in  exporting  tobacco;  reasons  for  dropping  11th  and  12th 
articles ;  condition  of  campaign ;  as  to  accounts  of  Beaumarchais,  May  15, 
1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  May  20,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date. ) 
From  A.  Lee,  May  23,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  24,  1778. 
(See  Adams  to  Committee.) 
From  A  Lee,  Juise  1,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  June  9,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  June  15,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     British  evacuation  of  Philadelphia;  inquiries  as  to  Holker's 

mission,  June  21,  1778. 
To  Bingham.    As  to  military;  movements,  Sept.  18,  1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  July  1,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  sanu;  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  July  28,  177y. 

(See  A.  L^ee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  July  28,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  July  29,  1778. 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 


PRELIxMlNARY    INDEX.  43 


Committee— Cont  ill  ned. 

From  Coiitiiiitisioucrs,  July  29, 1778. 

(See  FranJciin  et  at.  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Aii<;,  7,  1778. 

(See  J.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  J.  Lee,  Aug.  21,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Aug.  31,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Sept.  9, 1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Co m7nittee,  same  date.) 
From  IF.  Lee,  Sept.  12, 1778. 

(See  W.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From-  A.  Lee,  Sept.  30, 1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Dec.  25, 1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  Com»jiffce,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  15,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  J.  iee,  Jan.  15, 1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  IsrartZ,  Jan.  28, 1779. 

(See  Izard  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  13,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  J.  Zee,  Feb,  25, 1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Coj«mftee,  same  date.) 
From  W.  Lee,  Feb.  25,  1779. 

(See  TV.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  1,  1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Cowj>«iY/ee, same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Mar.  4, 1779. 

(See  Izard  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  ^.  Lee,  Mar.  7,  1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  TF.  Lee,  Mar.  25, 1779. 

(See  W,  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date. 
From  ^.  Zee,  Apr.  6, 1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  sume  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Apr.  22, 1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Apr.  26,  1779. 

(See  ^.  Xee  to  Committee,  &a,me  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Apr.  29, 1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  May  15, 1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  J.  Zee,  May  21, 1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Commit  tee,  sume  date.) 
From  Franklin,  May  26, 1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Committee,  Hume  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Aug.  23, 1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Committee  of  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Aug.  24,  1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 


^4  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Committee— Continued. 

From  A.  Lee,  Sept.  19,  177D. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Damas,  Sept.  20,  1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  W.  Lee,  Sept.  28, 1779. 

(See  W.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Sept.  29, 1779. 

(See  Izard  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Oct.  13,  1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Oct.  21,  1779. 

(See  ^.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  .4.  Xee,  Nov.  6,  1779. 

(See  J.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  J.  Lee,  Nov.  30,  1779. 

(See  ^.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  .4.  iee,  Dec.  8,  1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Damas,  Dec.  9,  1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Dec.  10,  1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Dec.  11,  1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  J.  Xee,  Dec.  25,  1779. 

(See  J.  iee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Dec.  30, 1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  CoHimi<<ee,  same  date.) 
From  J.Xee,  Jan.l9, 1780. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  LT.  Laurens,  Jan.  24, 1780. 

(See  If.  Laurens  to  CommJ/fec,  same  date.) 
From  H.  Laurens,  Feb.  14, 1780. 

(See  H.  Laurens  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Ef.  Laurens,  Fel).  24, 1780, 

(Sec  F.  Laurens  to  Commi^ef, same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  15, 1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Committee,  same  date. ) 
From  Ja//,  May  27, 1780. 

(See  Jai/  to  Co/Jimii/ee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  May  28, 1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  CoHimiWee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  J n\y  17,1780. 

(See  Carmicliael  to  CoH«mif/ee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichad,  Aug.  22, 1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Cowmt/^fie.same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Sept.  9, 1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Com»ii<fec,same  date.) 
Froui  ff.  Laurens,  Sept.  14, 1780, 

(See  H.  Laurems  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Sept.  25, 1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Cowinif fee, same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Oct.  15, 1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  C'owi»n//ee,same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  45 

Committee— Continued. 

From  CarmkhaeL  Nov.  28,  1780. 

(Seu  Cannichael  to  Commit  lee,  same  date.) 
From  Jaij,  Nov.  30,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Committee,  .same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Dec.  19,  1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Jan.  7,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Jan.  29,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Feb.  10,  1781. 

(See  Z)a/m  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Feb.  22,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Mar.  4,  178L 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Mar.  11,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Mar.  24,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Burke  et  al.,  same  date.) 
From  JF.  Xee,  Apr.  12,  1781. 

(See  fF.  Zee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  May  25,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  May  26,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  June  2,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Sept.  28,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Oct.  6,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Nov.  17,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  from  Livingston,  same  date.) 
Committee  as  to  Rhode  Island,  Dec.  20,  1782. 
(See  Livingston  to  Committee,  same  date.) 

[For  other  letters  to  committees,  see  (7ow</ress. ] 
Committees  of  Congress,  governmentof  foreign  affairs  by.   See  introduction,  \S^  15, 
103,  104,  ISO,  209.     See  also  Congress. 
(For  letters  by  committees,  see  also  names  of  chairmen  of  such  committees.) 
^'Compromisers." — Persons  appearing  as  such  during  the  war.     Introduction,  ^  197. 
Conciliation  bill,  rejection  of,  by  House  of  Commons.     Hartley  to  Franklin,  July 

17,  1880. 
Conciliatory  measures  of  Lord  North  in  1778.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb. 

28,  1778. 
Confederation  frigate,  fitting  out  at  Martinique.    Luzerne  to   Congress,  Mar.  8, 
1780. 
(See  Jay  to  Franklin,  Jan.  20,  1780.) 
Conference.     Lord  Howe  regrets  Franklin  will  not  meet  him  for  informal.     Lord 
Howe  to  Franklin,  Aug.  10,  1776. 
Committee  appointed  for,  with  Lord  Howe.     FranJclin  to  Lord  Howe,  Sept.  8,  1776. 
Between  Lord  Howe  and  American  Commissioners,  details  of,  Sept.  11,  1776. 
Account  of.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Dec.  21,  1776. 


46  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Congress  (prior  to  Aug.  1781)  took  entire  control  of  foreign  aifairs  "by  resolution  or 
tlirougli  committees.     Introduction,  ^.  103. 
Inefficiency  of  management  of  foreign  affairs.     Ibid.,  ^^)  104,^. 
Cabals  in.     Ibid.,  ^  11,209. 
Parties  in.     Ibid.,  ^  2  ff. 

Opposition  in,  to  executive  government.     Ibid.,  §  209. 
Encroacliments  of.     Ibid.,  §  4. 

Last  petition  of,  to  tlie  British  King.     Franklin  to  Priestley,  July  7,  1775. 
Directs  the  Committee  of  Correspondence  to  engage  engineers  in  the  service  of 

the  Colonies.     Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  Dec.  2,  1775. 
Authorizes  application  for  supplies  to  French  West  India  Islands,  May  18,  1776. 
Prepares  form  of  treaties,  July  20,  1776. 
From  Beaumarcliais,  Sept.  15. 1776. 

(See  Beaumarcliais  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Instructions  to  Commissioners  in  Paris,  Oct.  16,  1776. 
From  Deane,  Oct.  17,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
General  instructions  to  Commissioners  to  purchase  ships,  Oct.  22,  1776. 
From  Deane,  Nov.  27,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Beaumarcliais,  Dec.  1,  1776. 

(See  Beaumarcliais  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  8,  1776. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Faith  of,  pledged  hy  Coramissiouers  for  supplies,  Jan.  5,  1777. 
Action  of,  as  to  importation  of  arms  and  as  to  loan.  Morris  to  Commissioners,  Jan. 

14,  1777. 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  20,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  sume  date.) 
From  Franklin  and  Deane,  Feb.  6,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  and  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Beaumarcliais,  Feb.  28,  1777. 

(See  Beaumarcliais  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Apr.  8,  1777. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Policy  of,  in  May,  1777  ;  Committee  to  Commissioners,  May  2,  1777.     See  Introduc- 
tion, ^§  104  #. 
Action  of,  as  to  commissions  to  foreign  ministers,  July  2,  1777. 
From  W.  Lee,  Oct.  7,  1777. 

(See  IV.  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  23,  1777. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  W.  Lee,  Jan.  22,  1778.  | 

(See  W.  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.)  * 

From  JV.  Lee,  Feb.  7,  1778. 

(See  W.  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin  and  Deane,  Feb.  8,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  and  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Feb.  16,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  W.  Lee,  Feb.  28,  1778. 

(See  W.  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Mar.  19,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  47 

Congress — Contiuued. 

From  W.  Lee,  Mar.  23,  1778. 

(Seo  JV.  Lee  to  Covjjnss.  same  date.) 
From  Vtryenncs,  Mar.  25,  177!:?. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  the  King  of  France  (I  wo  letters).  Mar.  28,  1778. 

(See  King  of  France  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  31,  1778. 

(Seo  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
DitJticuIty  iu  obtaiiiiug  iuformatiou.     Lovell  to  Commissionera,  Apr,  30,  1778. 

Instruciions  of,  to  Commissioners,  May  1,  1778. 
From  Conuiiissioners,  May  19,  1778. 

(See  Franklin,  Lee,  and  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Juue  17,  1778. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
From  Izard,  Jnue  28,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  D^Esiaing,  July  8,  1778. 

(See  D'Esiaing  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  July  18,  1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard  (two  letters),  July  14,  1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  July  20,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  July  23,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  and  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  July  25,  1778. 

(See  l0fl?'fZ  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  27,  1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  July  28,  1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  July  29,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  27,  1778. 

(See  Adams  to  roy//yrt.s6,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  7, 1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Sept.  8, 1778. 

(See  Dearie  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Sept.  11. 1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Coji^ress,  same  date.) 
From  Adarns,  Sept.  11, 1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.  ) 
From  Izard,  Sept.  12, 1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Co/j^rt^js,  same  date.) 
From  the  Commissioners,  Sept.  17, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Co»<7ress,  same  date.) 
Proceedings  of,  in  Deane's  case,  Sept.  16, 18, 22,  Oct.  14,  Dec.  7, 22, 31, 1778;  June  10, 

Aug.  16, 1779. 
From  .-IfZrt^fS,  Sept.  20, 1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Sept.  22, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Congress,  Qa>me  date.) 


48  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Congress — Coutinued. 

From  Deane,  Sept.  22, 1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Action  of,  as  to  dissensions  among  ministers  abroad, Sept.  22,  Oct.  15,  Dec.  7, 1778 

Jan.  20,  Mar.  24,  27,  Apr.  3,  15,  20,  30,  May  3,  June  8,  10,  Aug.  IG,  1779. 
From  Deane,  Sept.  24, 1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Conrjress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct,  2, 1778. 

(See  Adains  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Invites  Dr.  Price  to  a  financial  position,  Oct.  6,  1778. 
From  Deane,  Dec.  4, 1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.  ) 
From  Gerard,  Dec.  6, 1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  Co??^?'ess,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  (3, 1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Con^/ress,  same  da.te.) 
From  Gerard,  Dec.  7, 1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  aame  data.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  8, 1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Cow^ress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Oct.  7, 1878. 

(See  Deane  to  Co^jf/ress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane  (three  letters),  Oct.  12, 1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  1, 1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Nov.  7, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  G<?ra7Y/,  Nov.  9,  1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  19,  1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Oer«r(Z,  Nov.  20,  1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  30,  1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Dec.  2,  1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  3   1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
From  Gerard,  Dec.  4, 1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  7uM/7  o/  Finance,  Dec.  19,  1778. 

(See  ffin^r  of  France  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Dec.  14,  1778. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  jff.  Laurens,  Dec.  16,  1778. 

(See  JT.  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Dec.  21,  1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Dec.  30,  1778. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Jan.  4,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


PKELIMINARY    INDEX.  49 

Congress — Continued. 

From  Deane,  Jun.  4,  1779. 

(Sco  Deunc  to  Cotujresx,  same  date.) 
From  (rcrard,  Jan.  5,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Jan.  10,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Action  as  to  French  alliance,  Jan.  11,  1779. 
From  Gerard,  Jan.  14,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Jan.  1;'),  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
Action  as  to  Commi.ssioners  abroad,  Jan.  20.  1779, 
From  Deane,  Jan.  *21,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Feb.  3,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Feb.  8,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard  (two  letters),  Feb.  9,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Action  of,  as  to  Barbary  powers,  Feb.  21,  1779. 

(See  Barbary  Poivers.) 
From  Deane,  Feb.  22,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Proceedings  of,  as  to  peace  with  Britain,  Feb.  23,  27,  Mar.  17,  19,  22,  24,  May  8, 
12,  22,  June  3,  17,  19,  24,  July  1,  12,  17,  22,  24,  29,  31,  Aug.  3,  13,  Sept.  9,  11, 
17,  25,  28,  Oct.  9,  13,  14,  1779. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  27,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  1,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Mar.  14,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Mar.  15,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  W.  Lee,  Mar.  16,  1779. 

(See  fV.  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Mar.  16,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Mar.  17,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date. '^ 
From  Deane,  Mar.  29,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Mar.  31,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congrets,  same  date. ) 
From  Deane,  Apr,  2,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Apr.  6,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Apr.  17,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Apr.  24,  1779. 

(See  Gerard,  to  Congress,  same  date.) 

4  TVH 


50  PKELIMINAKY    INDEX. 

Congress — Coutinued. 

From  J.  Lee,  Apr.  26,  1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Apr.  26,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Apr.  27,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Inefficiency  of.     Jag  to  Washington,  Apr.  20,  1779.     Introduction,  $$  104,  209. 
From  Deane,  Apr.  30,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  May  3,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Equally  divided  as  to  recall  of  Arthur  Leo,  May  3,  1779.     Introduction,  ^^  149^. 
From  Gerard,  May  4,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
(From  Gerard,  May  6,  1779.) 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard  (two  letters).  May  9,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  May  12,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  May  19,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gemr^,  May  22,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dea«e,  May  22,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Action  of,  as  to  captures  on  high  seas,  May  22,  1779. 
From  R.Laurens,  May  15,  1779. 

(See  if.  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  May  24,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  May  25,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  GerarfZ,  May  27,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^.  iee.  May  31,  1779. 

(See  ^.  iee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Juue  2,  1779. 

(See  FranMin  to  Marine  Committee,  same  date.) 
Recalls  J^rartZ,  June  8,  1779, 
From  Gerard,  Juue  21,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.; 
From  ^.  Xfie,  Juue  21,  1779. 

(See  A.Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard  (two  letters),  July  5,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  July  10,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard  (three  letters),  July  26,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  July  28,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  G^erar(Z,  July  30,  1779.) 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  51 

Congress— Continued. 

Proccciliugs  of,  us  to  I'loncli  consuls,  Aug-.  2,  1771). 
From  Adama,  Aug.  '3,  1771). 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  4,  1771). 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard  (two  letters),  Aug.  f),  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Aug.  11,  1771).) 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Aug.  18,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Presents  sword  to  ia  Fayette.     Franklin  to  Xa  Fayette,  Aug.  24,  1779.     Za  Fayette 

to  FranliUn,  Aug.  29,  1779. 
From  ^.  Zee,  Sept.  10,  1779. 

(See  ^.  Xee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  10,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  (?erar<?,  Sept.  15,  1779.) 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Gerard,  Sept,  15,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  23,  1779.) 

(See  J(?aws  to    Co/jryress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  4,  1779.. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress  (Jay),  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  19,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress  (Huntington),  same  dateo) 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  21,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  21,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichad,  Oct.  25,  1779. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jdawis,  Nov.  4,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov\  7,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Reception  of  Luzerne  by,  Nov.  17,  1779". 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  17,  1779. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Nov.  23,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Miralles,  Nov.  24,  1779. 

(See  Miralles  to  Conaress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  26,  1779. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Dec.  0,  1779. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  11,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  16,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Dec.  18,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date,) 


52  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

CoNGKESS— Contiuued. 

From  Jay,  Dec.  20,  1779. 

(See  Jay  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Dec.  22,  1779. 

(See  Jay  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Dec.  24,  1779. 

(See  Jail  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Ja//  (two  letters),  Dec.  25,  1779. 

(See  Jay  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  t/^a*/,  Deo.  26,  1779. 

(See  Jay  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Dec.  27,  1779. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Jan.  10,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  16, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Jan.  24,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Jan.  25,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  J'aj/,  Jan.  27,  1780. 

(See  t/a?/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Conferences  with  Luzerne,  Jan.  28,  1780, 
From  Luzerne,  Feb.  2,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^rfams,  Feb.  15,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  17,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jdams,  Feb.  19,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Feb.  19,  1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^dflms,  Feb.  20,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Ja?/,  Feb.  20,  1780. 

(See  Ja]/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^ftows,  Feb.  23,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^^am.s,  Feb.  25,  1880. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^(fams,  Feb.  27,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  JrtJ/,  Feb.  29,  1880. 

(See  Ja»/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  .4da>».s,  Feb.  29,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  3,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jaj/  (two  letters),  Mar.  3,  1780. 

(See  Ja^  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  4,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  bB 


Congress — Continued. 

From  Adams  (two  letters),  Mar.  8,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Co»///-e.sv>',  .same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  4,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Mar  8,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  10,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  12,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Mar.  14, 1780, 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  Mar.  18,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  19,  .1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jr7ams,  Mar.  20,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  21,  1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  23,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jf?«ms  (two  letters),  Mar.  24,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^(Zrtms,  Mar.  26,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  29,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters).  Mar.  30,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  CoH^/ress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  April  3,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  4,  1780. 

(See  Jftowts  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  7, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  8,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.)   , 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Apr.  10,  1789, 

(See -4(?am.9  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  11,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Apr.  11,  1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  14,  1780. 

(Sec  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  15,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  .4fZa»(s,  Apr.  17,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  18,  1780. 

(Sec  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jf7rtj»8,  Apr.  24,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


54  PRELIMINARY   INDEX. 

Congress — Continued. 

From  Adams,  Apr.  25,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  26,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  28,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Apr,  29,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  2,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  3,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (four  letters),  May  8,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  9,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  .lf^«/)^s,  May  10,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  11,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  13,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^t?ams,  May  16,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  May  16,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  19,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  May  20,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  May  21,  1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franldin,  May   22,  1780. 

(See  Franldin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  23,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Conference  with  Luzerne  as  to  approacliing  campaign,  Maj'^  24,  1780. 
From  Adams,  May  26, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  J«j/,  May  26,  1780. 

(See  f/ay  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  27, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jay  (two  letters),  May  28,  1780. 

(See  -Taj/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jrti/,  May  30,  1780. 

(See  Jiff?/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  FranMin,  May  31,  1780. 

(See  Franldin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters)  June  1,1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  sauui  date.) 
From  Franldin,  June  1,  1780. 

(See  Franldin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  55 

CoxGUKSS — Continued. 

From  Adams  (two  letters),  Jiiiio  2,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congres,s,  same  date.) 
From  Adams.  June  4,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams.  June  5,  17f:0. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Juno  10,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date). 
Interview  with  Luzerue  as  to  coming  campaign,  June  5,  7,  1780. 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  June  12,  1780. 

(Sec  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  June  16,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Z»;r6r»6',  June  18,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  26,  1780. 

(Soo  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  June  28,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  29,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  July  6, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  July  7,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Ja^/v  July  10,  1780. 

(See  Jaw  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  14,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (three  letters),  Julj^  1.5, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  July  15,  1780. 

(Sec  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  July  19,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  J^Z«/n,9,  July  22,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  July  22,  1780. 

(See  lAizerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  July  22,  1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jrfrtm-s,  July  23,  1780. 

(See  Adamn  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  July  25,  1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  July  25,  1780. 

(See  Lyuzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  July  26,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Fron  /2r«)YZ,  Aug.  6,  1780. 

(See  /^rtrrZ  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  FranJdin,  Aug.  9,  1780. 

(See  Fraulclin  to  Congress,  same  date,) 


56  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Congress— Continued. 

From  Franklin,  Ang.  10,  1780. 

(Sec  FrankUn  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Aug.  10, 1780. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Ada)ns,  Aug.  14,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne  (two  letters),  Aug.  15,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.  ) 
From  Adanih,  Aug.  22,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Cowf/ress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  23,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Aug.  24,  1780. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,   Sept.  1,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  4,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  5,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  D^mas,  Sept.  12,  1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  15,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  16,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  16,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Ja//,  Sept.  16,  1780. 

(See  Jaj/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  4rfa»(s,  Sept.  19,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Daua,  Sept.  20,  1780. 

(See  £>«»«  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  24,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Conference  of,  witli  French  minister  as  to  separate  peace,  Sept.  24, 1780. 
From  Adams,  Sept.  25,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
-  From  Adams,  Sept.  28, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Action  of,  as  to  armed  neutrality,  Oct.  4,  1780. 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Oct.  5,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  6,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  J.  Lcf,  Oct.  7,  1780. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Marhois,  Oct.  8,  1780. 

(See  Marhois  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  11,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  14,  1760. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.  ? 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX,  57 


Congress— Continued. 

From  Adams,  Oct.  24,  1780. 

(Sec  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Marhois,  Oct.  27,  1780. 

(See  Marbois  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  27,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct  31,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  1,  1780. 

(See  XMS-erwe  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ./a?/,  Nov.  G,  1780. 

(Sec  f/rt^  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  16,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  17,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  25,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  JrtJ/,  Nov.  20,  n80. 

(See  Jrt]/  to  Comgrcss,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  30, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  1,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  FrankUn,  Dec.  2,  1780. 

(See  FrankUn  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  3,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Dec.  0,  1780. 

(See  L«  Fayette  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^.  Zee,  Dec.  7,  1780. 

(See  J.  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  14,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  18,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
From  Dumas,  Dec.  19,  1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  21, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (three  letters),  Dec.  25,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  J(?rt/».s,  Dec.  20,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Dec.  28,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jrf«M.9,  Dec.  30,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  31, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  1,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date,) 
From  Laurens,  Jan.  3,  1781. 

(Sec  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


58  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Congress— Contimiecl. 

From  Adams,  Jau.  4,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  5,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Proceediugs  in;  orgauization  of,  Foreign  Department  resolved  upon,  Jan.  10, 

1781. 
From  Adams,  Jan.  14,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (three  letters),  Jan.  15,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Jan.  15,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  18,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Answer  of,  to  French  minister ;  expect  to  have  adequate  forces  in  field  for  ensuing 

campaign,  Jan.  31,  1780. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  1,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Second  conference  with  French  minister,   calling,  on  behalf  of  Spain,  on  the 
United  States  to  speak  definitely  c^s  to  their  western  boundaries  and  Florida, 
Feb.  2,  1780. 
From  Laurens,  Feb.  4,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Feb.  5,  1781. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Feb.  7,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Proceedings   in;  orgauization  of  a  Department  of  Finance;  resolutions  passed 
that  there  should  be  a  Secretary  of  Marine  and  a  Secretary  of  War,  Feb.  7, 
1781. 
From  W.  Lee,  Feb.  10,  1781. 

(See  TV,  Lee  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Proceedings  in;  Robert  Morris  elected  Superintendent  of  Finance,  Feb.  20,  1781. 
From  Dumas,  Feb.  22,  1781. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Feb.  25,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Feb.  28,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Mar.  2,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  5,  1781. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Resolution  of,  acceding  to  the  principles  of  neutrality  declared  by  Russia,  presented 
by  Adams  to   the  States-General    by    Vauguyon   Van  Berckel,    Galiitzen, 
Sapherin,   and  Ehrenswerd.     Adams  to  the  above.  Mar.  8,  1781. 
From  the  King  of  France  (two  letters).  Mar.  10,  1781. 

(See  King  of  France  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Mar.  11,  1781. 

(Sec  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Yion\. L'ranldin,  Mar.  12,  1781. 

(See  FranlcJin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Mar.  13,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY   INDEX.  ^  59 

Congress— Continued. 

Proceedings  in  ;  resolutions  that  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  Morris  to  dissolve  his 
comuiercial  connections  to  accept  the  .Superintendencj^  of  Finance,  and  that  lie 
have  the  appointment  and  removal  of  clerks.     Given  as  note  to  Morris^  letter 
to  Congress,  Mar.  i:?,  1781. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  18,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  19,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Mar.  20,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jaij,  Mar.  22,  1781. 

(See  Jag  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  22,  1781. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Mar.  24,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Mar.  24,  1781. 

{See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Mar.  28,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters).  Mar.  29,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dft/ia,  Mar.  31,  1781. 

(See  i)ana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Apr.  2,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Apr.  4,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  G,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Apr.  9,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Proceedings  in;   giving  Morris    power    of   appointment,    suspension,    and    re- 
moval over  j)ersons  employed  in  the  Department  of  Finance,  Apr.  21,  27, 
1781. 
From  Jones,  Apr.  22,  1781. 

(See  Jones  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Apr.  24,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Apr.  25,  1781. 

(See  Jay  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  May  1,  1781. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  3,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  7,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
From  Luzerne,  May  9,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  May  13,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  14,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


60  PRELIMINARY    INDEX« 

Congress— Continued. 

From  Franldin,  May  14,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  May  15,  1781. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  May  15,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  15,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  16,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  17,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  DaHC^,  May  20,  1781. 

(See  Drtwa  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  21,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  May  22,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  23,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  24,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  May  25,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  25,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  May  26,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  JfZrtms,  May  27,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jaj/,  May  29,  1781. 

(See  Jay  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters).  May  31,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  June  4,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  5,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  11,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franldin,  Jane  11,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  12,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  15,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Commissions  to  mediate  and  to  treat  of  peace ;  Huntington,  proclamation  of, 

June  15,  1781. 
From  Morris,  June  21,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  June  23,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters^  June  26,  1781. 
(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


PllELIMINARY    INDEX.  (j] 


Congress— Contiunctl. 

From  Adams,  June  27,  1781. 

(Sec  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  29,  17H1. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  July  1,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  5,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  July  7,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Marhois,  July  9,  1781. 

(See  Marhois  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  il/orrjs,  July  9,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  10,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  11,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  11,  1781. 

■(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Marhois,  July  11,  1781. 

(See  Marhois  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  14,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  15,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^f^ams,  July  17,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Xit^rerwe,  July  20,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  21,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  July  26,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  £>«.»«,  July  28,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  30,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  3,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Aug.  6,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  8,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Aug.  15,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Aug.  10,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  18,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  .'if?ams  (two  letters),  Aug.  22,  1781, 

(See  JfZamsto  Congress,  same  date.) 
FromZ>MWfl8,  Aug.  23,  1781.) 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


Q2  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Congress-— Cod  tinned. 

From  Liciiujsion,  Aug.  25,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Aug.  28,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Sept.  2,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Sept.  6,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  7,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to   Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  8,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  10,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  FranUin,  Sept.  15,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Sept.  15,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  18,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  J«(/,  Sept.  20,  1781. 

(See  Jt/^  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  21,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  23,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Memorial  of  i*'.  Rendon  to,  Sept.  24, 1781. 
(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne  Sept.  24,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Ja^,  Oct.  3,  1781. 

(See  Jtti/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Oct.  11,  1781. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Oct.  15,  1781. 

(See  PaHrt  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Oct.  15,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ^dawts,  Oct.  17,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Oct.  18,  1781. 

(See  Ja^/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Letter  of  acknowledgment  of,  to  King  of  France,  Oct.  18,  1781. 
From  Morris,  Oct.  18,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  18,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  the  iTiHgf  of  France,  Oct.  22,  1781. 

(See  iToif/  0/  France  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  25,  1781. 

See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Oct.  29,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


PliELlMINAKY    INDEX.  G3 

CoNGUKSS — Coutiuueil. 

From  Adams,  Nov   1,  1781. 

(Sec  Adams  to  Congress,  sjime  date.) 
From  Morris,  Nov.  5,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  FranJcUu,  Nov.  5,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  McKean,  for  Coiigrews,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  (5,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  saine  date.) 
Improvident  action  of,  in  drawing  without  funds,    l^yanlclin  to,  Adams,  Nov.  7, 

1781. 
From  Morris,  Nov.  9,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  18,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  25,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Nov.  29,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Congratulations  of,  to  King  of  France,  Nov.  29,  1781. 
From  Adams,  Dec.  4,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  13,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  14,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  18,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Dec.  20,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jf?a?«s^two  letters),  Dec.  25,  1781. 

(See  Adatns  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  29,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Jan.  7,  1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  14,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Jan.  15,  1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Jan.  15,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  15,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  16,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  18,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  25,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Jan.  28, 1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  29,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date„) 


64  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

CONGHESS — Continued. 

From  Dumas,  Jan.  30, 1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  5, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Feb.  6,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
Resolutions  of,  as  to  need  of  French  loan,  Feb.  8,  1782. 
From  Morris,  Feb.  11, 1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Feb.  18, 1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  21, 1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congjrss,  ssbme  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  23, 1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  26, 1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Mar.  8, 1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Mar.  9,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Mar.  17,  1782. 

(See  Deane  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ifojTis,  May  4, 1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
In  reply  to  merchants  of  Pbiladelpbia,  May  4,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  May  8,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  8,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  9,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  10,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston  (two  letters),  May  13,  1782. 

(See  LJvingston  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
From  Livingston  (two  letters),  May  15,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  17,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  21,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  23,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  il/orris.  May  27,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  May  30,  1782. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Resolves  as  to  fidelity  to  French  alliance,  May  31,  1782. 
From  ilforris,  May  31,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  June  5,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Congratulates  King  of  France  on  Dauphin's  birth,  Juue  13,  1780. 


PKELIMINAKY    INDEX.  66 

Congress— Continued. 

From  Morris,  July  21),  178'>. 

(Sco  Morris  to  Couf/rcss,  .same  diite.) 
From  Morris,  inly  30,  1762. 

(See  Morris  to  Cotu/ress,  sjime  dtite.) 
Action  of,  as  to  tisbeiies  and  western  boundaries,  Aug.  '20,  17'82. 
From  LiriiKjston,  Au<j;.  23,  1782. 

(See  Liviiifjston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  1,  17H2. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Sept.  5,  1782. 

(See  lAiurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  9,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  9,  1782. 

(See  A[orris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Orders  au  account  of  British  spoliations  to  be  sent  to  ministers  abroad,  Sept.  10, 

1782. 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  11,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston  (three  letters),  Sept.  12,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Action  of,  as  to  appropriation  of  funds  obtained  in  Europe,  Sept.  14,  1782, 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  23,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Pledges  fidelity  to  France;  action  of,  as  to  fisheries  and  Mississippi  Valley,  Oct. 

3,  4,  1782. 
From  Luzerne,  Oct.  IG,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  21,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  Oct.  25,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Oct.  28,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Oct.  29,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  2,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ia  Fayette,  Dec.  3,  1782. 

(See  Xrt  Fayette  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  9,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Dec,  12,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  22,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Dec.  26,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date,) 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  30,  1782. 

(See  Livingsion  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Dec.  31,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date,) 
From  Luzerne,  Jan.  24,  1783. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
5  WH 


6*G  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Congress— Continued. 

From  La  Fayette,  Feb.  5,  1783. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  LiviiKjston,  Feb.  18,  1783. 

(See  IJv'myston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  26,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Feb.  26,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Mar.  8, 1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Mar.  10, 1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  13,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Mar.  17,  1783. 

(Sec  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livinsgton,  Mar.  18,  1783. 

(Sec  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Xuv"»/</s<on,Mar.  21,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  sanae  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  28,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  C<7j/  o/  Hamhurg,  Mar.  29, 1783. 

(See  City  of  Hamburg  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston  (two  letters),  Apr.  10,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to    Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Apr.  14,  1783. 

(See  ilf orris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Apr.  21, 1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Apr.  23,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  1,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  3,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  9,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  May  13,  1783. 

(See  Laurens  to  Co »</r ess,  same  date.) 
Frorti  Morris,  May  15,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  21,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  June  2,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
Inefficiency  of,  arising  from  small  attendance  and  other  causes,     ilfadison  to  Je/- 

ferson,  June  10,  1783.     See  Introduction,  $H,  209. 
Mode  of  receiving  foreign  ministers  of;  resolution,  June  12,  1783. 
From  Livingston,  June  14,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ilforris,  July  13,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date/) 


I'KELIMINAUY    INDEX.  G7 

Congress — Continued. 

From  Morris,  July  18,  178:^. 

(S(H5  Morris  to  Confjress,  HsiuuMlato.) 
Froiu  La  Fayette,  July  20,  178:}. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Congress,  same  djiie.) 
From  Morris,  .July  28,  178:i. 

(Sec  Morris  to  Congress,  sauic  duto.) 
From  Morris,  July  ol,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Aug.  1,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  31,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  1,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  5,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ia  Fayette,  Sept.  7,  1783. 

(See  Xrt  Fayette  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Sept.  8,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Franklin,  and  t/av/,  Sept.  10,  1783. 

(See  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Ja*/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jrfam',  Sept.  10,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept,  13,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  17,  1783. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  27,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date. 
Instructions  of,  to  the  Peace  Ministers  at  Paris  to  negotiate  commercial  treaties 
with  foreign  powers,  making  reciprocity  the  basis:  to  settle  claims  on  Den- 
mark ;  to  inquire  into  the  accounts  of  the  Alliance  and  the  ^on  Homme  liichard', 
to  decline  to  enter  into  the  armed  neutrality;  to  call  Carmichael  to  Paris 
unless  required  at  Madrid ;  definitive  treaty  ratified.  Proceedings,  Oct.  29, 
1783. 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  1,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date. ) 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  2,  1783. 

{i^QQ  Luzerne  io  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Dec.  17, 1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  25, 1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  26, 1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  ia  Fayette,  Dec.  26, 1783. 

(See  Xrt  Fayette  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Jan.  13,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Jan.  16,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Jan.  21,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 


68  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Congress — Coutiuued. 

From  Morris,  Jan.  24,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Contjrcss,  sauie  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Jau.  30,  1784. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Feb.  2,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  2,  1784. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Jda?n8,  Mar.  9,  1784. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Mar.  17,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Ai^r.  6,  1784. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne  Apr.  9,  1784. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luz(rne,  Apr.  21,  1784. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Apr.  24,  1784. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Apr.  28,  1784. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Apr.  30,  1784. 

(See  Laurens  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  May  6,  1784. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  6,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  May  12,  1784. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  16,  1784. 

(See  Franklin  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  22,  1784. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  J^ay,  July  25,  1784. 

(See  Jrtj/  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Charles,  King  of  Spain,  Sept.  25,  1784. 

(See  Charles,  King  of  Spain,  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  30,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  30,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Florida  Blanca,  Oct.  8,  1784. 

(See  Florida  Blanca  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Oct.  12,  1784. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Nov.  1,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  same  date.) 
'* Constructive"  school  of  revolutionary  statesmen  as  distinguished  from  the 

merely  **liberative."     Introduction,  $§  2,209. 
Consul  at  Nantes.     Importance  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  June  29,  1780. 
Consul  at  Leghorn.     Application  for.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Mar.  2,  1783. 
Consuls  (see  Commercial  agents) — 

In  the  United  States.     Appointment  of  Gerard  as.     Xoiti«  XF/  to  Congress,  Mar. 
28,  1778. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  60 

Consuls — Continued. 

Provisions  for  ai>poiutmcnt  of.     Commissioners  to  Congress,  July  29,  1778. 

Appointment  of,  in  Congioss.     Franklin  to  Lloyd,  Feb.  G,  1779. 

Functions  of.     Franklin  to  J'ergennes,  Sept.  7,  1780. 

8ysteni  as  to,  proposed.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  July  20,  1781. 

Dnties  of.     Livingston  to  Ji.  Smith,  Feb.  26,  1782. 

Should  ordinarily  be  citizens.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Mar.  2,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Congress,  Mar.  3,  1780.) 
Proceediugs  of  Congress  as  to  French,  Aug.  2,  1779. 
Action  of  Congress  as  to  French,  Mar.  10,  1784. 
(See  Lnzerne  to  Congress,  May  6,  1784.) 
Contraband,  questions  as  to,  arising  in  the  Revolution.     Ihid.,  $$  100,  102. 
Convoys,  American — 

Difficulty  in  obtaining.     Committee,  ato,.,  to  Commissioners,  Feb.  19,  1777. 
Promise  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Dec.  18,  1777. 
Conway — 

His  opposition  to  Washington.     Introduction,  $  11. 
Commendation  of.     Deane  to  Committee,  etc.,  Nov.  29,  1776. 
CONYNGHAM.     (See  Cunningham.) 
Cook,  Captain.    Circular  letter  resiiecting.     Franklin  to  "aZ?  captains,"  etc.,  Mar.  10, 

1779. 
Cooper— 

From  Franklin,  May  1,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Cooper,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  11,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Cooper,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  27,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Cooper,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  28,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Cooper,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  March  16,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Cooper,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  7,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Cooper,  same  date.) 
From  FernoH,  Nov.  27,  1780. 

(See  Vernon  to  Cooper,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  28,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Cooper,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  26,  1782. 
(See  Franklin  to  Cooper,  same  date.) 
CoRNEY.     (French  commissary.)    Authority  given  to.     Con^rrcss,  June  5,  7,  1780. 

COUNWALLIS — 

His  disappointment  at  failure  of  loyalist  support.     Introduction,  $  22. 

Desertion  of  loyalists  by,  at  Yorktown.      Ihid.,  ^  24. 

Surrender  of,  with  nearly  seven  thousand  men,  including  seamen,  and  "about 
one  hundred  vessels,  above  fifty  of  them  square-rigged  " ;  weakening  of  op- 
position to  indei)endence.  Livingston  to  Dana,  Oct.  22,  1781;  Livingston  to 
Clinton,  Oct.  22,  1781. 

Celebration  of  surrender  of  at  Philadelphia.  Morris  to  Luzerne,  Nov.  3,  1781 
(note). 

Franklin's  reflections  on  surrender  of.     Franklin  to  Adams,  Nov.  26,  1781. 

Exchange  of.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  June  29,  1782. 

How  far  his  proclamation  as  to  hanging  prisoners  made  him  an  outlaw.  Franklin 
to  La  Fayette,  July  24,  1782. 

From  Ijaurens,  Dec.  9,  1782. 

(See  Laurens  to  Cormvallis,  same  date.) 


70  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Correspondence — 

Committee  chosen  for  carrying  on,  with  friends  in  Europe.    Secret  Journals  of  Con- 
gress, Nov.  2\),  1775.     (See  Congress,  Committee.) 
Diplomatic,  in  Revolution  ;  difficulty  in  maintaining.     Introduction,  ^  105. 
Failure  to  keep  up,  on  the  part  of  Congress  dangerous  to  American  interests  in 

France.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  1776. 
Dij)lomatic,  in  Europe;  intercepted,  opened,  and  suppressed.     Jay  to  Thomson, 
Apr.  29,  1781. 
Corruption.     Attempts  at,  by  British  Government.     Introduction,  $$7,  30. 

COUDRAY — 

Notice  of.     Introduction,  §  82. 

Will  embark  Oct.  1;  his  demands.     Deane  to  Committee,  etc.,  Aug.  18,  1776. 
Recommendation  and  services  of.     Deane  to  Committee,  etc.,  Nov.  6,  28,  1776. 
Objections  to  his  course  in  delaying  the  AmpMtrite.     Deane  to  Committee,  Jan.  20, 

1777. 
Explanations  of.     Franklin  and  Deane  to  Committee,  Feb.  6,  1777. 
Introduction  of.     Commissioners  to  Congress,  Feb.  6,  1777. 
His  memorial  to  Congress  for  relief.     Lovell  to  Washington,  July  24,  1777. 
Claims  of,  discussed.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Dec.  1,  1777. 
Council,  British.     Orders  of,  as  to  seizure  of  Dutch  vessels.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan. 
1,  1776. 
Orders  unfriendly  to  the  United  States.     Introduction,  $$  31,32. 
(See  ntt.) 
Council  of  Massachusetts.    From  Franklin,  June  4,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Council  of  Massachusetts,  same  date.) 
Courtesy  essential  to  diplomatic  intercourse.    Introduction,  $  15. 
CouTEULX  to  Jag.    Treatment  of  American  seamen,  July  4,  1780. 

COUTEULX— 

From  Morris,  June  8,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Couteulx  4'  Co.,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Aug.  26,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Messrs.  Couteulx  <^  Co.,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  18,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Couteulx  <^^  Co.,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  24,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Couteulx  tf-  Co.,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  27, 1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Couteulx  ^-  Co.,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Jan.  13, 1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Couteulx  ^  Co.,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Feb.  12, 1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Couteulx  c^'  Co.,  same  date.) 
Cowi'Er's  CASE,  Morris  to  Congress,  Jan.  13, 1784. 

Credit.     Length  of,  in  business.     Deane  to  Beaumarchais,  July  20, 1776. 
Credit  of  United  States  abroad.     Franklin  to  Congress,  May  31, 1780. 

(See  Loans,  Franklin.) 
Credit  of  several  Europp^an  nations,  the.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  etc., 'Nov.  2, 

1776 ;  Deane  to  Committee,  etc.,  Dec.  1, 1776. 
CREVEcrEUR,  appointed  French  consul  for  Connecticut,  New  York,  and  New  Jersey. 

Congress,  Mar.  16, 1784. 
Crocco  to  Franklin.  Emperor  of  Morocco  willing  to  conclude  a  treaty  with  United 
States;  orders  given  not  to  attack  ships  of  United  States  on  open  seas; 
United  States  embassador  to  meet  Crocco  in  Paris  and  go  to  Morocco  to  sign 
treaty ;  custom  of  European  nations  to  i)ay  expenses  of  embassadors  from 
Emperor  of  Morocco  ;  July  15, 1783. 


t'RELIMlNARV    JXDEX.  7l 

CRoCco— Continued. 

To  FranJcUn.     Will  return  to  Baibary  unless  answer  toletter  of  July  15  ami  >?l,'()() 
is  received;  fears  tbat  bis  return  without  a  treaty  having  been  negotiated 
will  set  Emperor  of  Morocco  against  the  United  States,  Nov.  '^5, 1783. 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  15, 1783. 

(See  Franldin  to  Crocco,  same  date.) 
Cromwell,  impossibility  of,  in  the  United  States.     Introduction,  ^  8. 
Cruklty.     British  in  war. 

(See  Introduction,  ^^  22,24  :  index,  title  Britain.) 
Cumberland — 

British  envoy  at   Madrid.     Carmichael  to  Congress,  July  17,  1780;  Adams  to  Con- 
gress, July  23,  1780. 
Continued  stay  of,  at  Madrid.     Carmichael  to  Comjress,  Aug.  22,  1780;  Sept.  9, 

1780.     Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  23,  1780;  Dana  to  Adams,  Sej)!.  8,  1780. 
Continues  at  Madrid.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Sept.  25,  1780. 
Spanish  minister's  account  of  mission  of.     Jag  to  Congress,  Nov.  G,  1780. 
Continues  at  Madrid,  spending  mucli  money.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Nov.  28, 

1780;  Jay  to  Congress,  Nov.  30,  1780. 
His  intrigues  at  Madrid.     Carmichael  to  Livingstoit,  Dec.  24,  1781. 
Working  to  injure  America.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  29,  1781. 
Demands  a  passport.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Feb.  22,  1781. 
About  to  leave  Spain  for  home.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Mar.  11,  1781. 
About  to  leave  Spain.     Jaij  to  Congress,  Mar.  22,  1781. 
Dangerously  ill  at  Bayonne,  but  his  influence  has  been  injurious  to  America. 

Carmichael  to  Franldin,  April  20,  1781. 
His  visit  (now  closed)  to  Madrid  one  of  mutual  deceit.     Jag  to  Congress,  Apr.  25, 

1781. 
The  unique  character  of  his  mission  to  Spain.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  May  28, 1781. 
Position,  in  Spain.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  June  18,  1781. 
Cunningham  (American  cai)tain).     Arrest  of,  for  breach  of  neutrality  at  Dunkirk. 
Commissioners  to  Committee,  May  25,  1777  (and  note),  May  26,  1777. 
Adventures  of.     Deane  to  Morris,  Aug.  23,  1777;  FranMin  to  Grand,  Oct.  14, 1778, 
Difficulties  as  to.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Nov.  15,  1778. 
Measures  taken  for  his  release.     FranMin  to  Nesbit,  Sept.  29,  1779. 
His  probable  exchange ;  difficulties  as  to  wages  and  prize  money.     Franklin  to 

Sartine,  Oct.  19,  1779;  Franklin  to  Le  Brun,  Oct.  25,  1779. 
Friendly  references  to.     Franklin  to  Grand,  Oct.  14,  Nov.  3,  1778. 
His  second  capture  and  imprisonment  in  England.    Franklin  To  Coffin,  Mar.  23, 1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Cunningham,  Feb.  6,  1781.) 
His  release  and  duties  ou  his  return.     Franklin  to  Cunningham,  June  20,  1781,  Fob. 
6,  1782. 
Currency,  American — 

Intention  of  British  ministry  to  depreciate,  by  distributing  forgeries.     A.  Lee  to 

Colden,  Feb.  14,  1776. 
Depreciation  of,  in  the  United  States.     Morris  to  Commissioners,  Dec.  21,  1776. 
Further  depreciation  of.      Vergennesto  Adams,  J nno  21,  1780',  Adams  to  Vergcnnes, 
June  22,   1780;  Franklin  to  Congress,   June   26,   1780. 
See  also   Vergennes  to  Franklin,  June  29,  1780;    Vergennes  to  Adams,  June  29, 
1780 ;  Morris  to  Congress,  Jan.  15,  1882. 
CURSON.     Arrest  of,  at  Eustatia.     Lovell  to  Franklin,  May  9,  1781. 
Curson  and  Gouverneur.     Inquiries  as  to.     Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  6,  1781. 

CURWEN — 

His  position  in  the  civil  war.     Introduction,  ^197. 
His  views  as  to  British  atrocities.     Ibid.,  ^  22. 


72  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Gushing— 

From  FranUin,  Feb.  21,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Cashing,  same  date.) 
From  Franhlin,   May  1,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Cushing,  same  date.) 
CUSTINE.     See  Introduction,  ^  78. 

Dalrymple,  Sir  J.,  notice  of.     Franklin  to  Carmichael,  Jan.  7, 1780. 
Damas.     See  Introduction,  §  78. 
Dana,  Francis — 

Congressional  services.    Introduction,  §  168. 

Mission  to  Russia.   Ihid.,  §  109. 

His  subsequent  career.    Ibid.,  §  170. 

His  attitude  as  to  Russia.    Ibid.,  ^  92. 

His  isolated  and  humiliating  position  at  St.  Petersburg.    Ibid.,  $  95. 

Secretary  to  Adams,  on  first  proposed    peace  negotiation.   Adams  to  Congress, 

Jan.  16, 1780. 
To  Adams.   As  to  his  own  health ;  position  of  Spain,  Sept.  8, 1780. 
To  Congress.   Arrival  at  Amsterdam;  confers  with  Adams;  thinks  there  should 

be  a  minister  to  Holland,  Sept.  20,  1780. 
To  Jackson.   Giving  account  of  the  capture  and  use  by  Britain  of  the  Laurens 

papers,  Nov.  11, 1780. 
Instructions  to,  from  Congress,  Dec.  19,  1780. 

(See  Congress  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.    Arrival  at  Paris;  views  of  Dutch  politics ;  reports  the  disloyal  utter- 
ances of  Deane,  Jan.  1,  1781. 
From  Adams,  Jan.  18,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  8,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
To  Committee.     Goes  to  Paris;  instructions  received;  loan  not  obtained;  resolu- 
tions of  Congress  upon  the  declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  not  received, 
Feb.  16,  1781. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  12,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
Declines  examination  of  accounts  of  Franklin  and  Deane.     Franklin  to  Conxjress, 

Mar.  12,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Commission  as  minister  to  St.  Petersburg  received  and  accepted ; 
information  as  to  his  position  and  salary  asked  ;  advised  by  Franklin  to  com- 
municate his  commission  to  Vergennes,  and  obtain  permission  of  Russia  to 
go  to  that  Court;  objection  to  asking  this  permission.  Mar.  24,  1781. 
To  Franklin.     Agrees  to  his  objections  to  communicating  his  mission  to  Court  of 
Russia;  will  pass  through  Holland  and  consult  with  Adams;  good  effect  of 
Maryland's  accession  to  the  Confederation,  Mar.  28,  1781. 
To  Vergennes.     Communicating  his  appointment  as  minister  to  Russia,  and  asking 
the  influence  of  France;  will  appear  as  a  private  citizen  until  certain  of  a 
favorable  reception.  Mar.  31,  1781. 
To  Congress.    Has  communicated  to  Vergennes  his  commiosion  as  minister  to  Rus- 
sia; departure  delayed  for  answer.  Mar.  31,  1781. 
From  Vergennes,  Apr.  1,  1781. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
To  Vergennes.     Will  wait  on  him  for  an  interview,  Apr.  2,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Vergennes'  letter;  apprehensive  that  Vergennes  will  put  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  bis  departure  for  Russia ;  will  consult  with  Adams,  Apr.  2,  1781. 
To  Congress.    Account  of  interview  with  Vergennes;   Vergennes  advises  him  to 
inform  the  Russian  minister  at  The  Hague  of  his  intentions;  resolutions  of 
Congress  well  received  in  Russia.,  Apr.  4,  1781. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  73 

Dana,  Francis — Continued. 

To  Franklin.  Asks  Franklin's  sentiments  and  liis  opinion  as  to  Vorgennes'  npon 
bis  mission  to  Russia;  will  ask  tlio  same  of  Adams;  leaves  Sunday  for  llol- 
laud,  Apr.  6,  1781. 

From  Franklin,  Apr.  7,  1781. 
(See  Franklin  to  Dawa,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.     Requests  advice  with  regard  to  his  mission  to  Russia,  Apr.  18,  1781. 

To  Jennings,  asking  him  to  go  to  St.  Petersburg,  Apr.  2(5,  1781. 

From  Adams,  Apr.  18,  1781.     Advice  as  to  conduct  in  his  mission  to  Russia. 
(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 

Fiom  Jennings,  May  3,  1781. 
(See  Dana  to  Jennings,  same  date.) 

From  Franklin,  May  11,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dana,  same  date.) 

To  Congress.  Reports  progress  on  his  journ(;y;  has  appointed  Edmund  Jennings 
as  an  associate,  May  V,l,  1781. 

Appointment  of,  to  Russia  considered  XJi'O'iifiture  by  France ;  he  would  not  bo 
received  by  the  Empress,  and  this  would  be  a  triumph  to  England. 
(See  Luzerne  to  Congress,  May  28,  1781.) 

To  Congress.  At  Berlin  on  his  way  to  Russia  ;  views  on  European  politics,  July 
2H,  1781. 

To  Adams.  Has  arrived  at  St.  Petersburg,  but  has  no  encouragement  from  tUo 
French  minister  or  from  any  other  quarter  as  to  his  reception  ;  is  ignorant  of 
the  condition  of  mediation,  Aug.  28,  1781. 

From  Verac,  Aug.  30,  1781. 
(See  Verac  to  Dana,  same  date.) 

To  Verac.  Stating  his  arrival  and  his  instructions  to  communicate  to  Verac  as 
French  minister ;  his  application  to  be  received  as  American  minister.  Sept, 
1,  1781. 

From  Verac.  Saying  that  it  is  doubtful,  in  view  of  the  pending  mediation, 
whether  Dana  could  be  received,  and  asking  him  to  consider  the  question  be- 
fore lie  claims  reception,  Sept.  2,  1781. 

To  Verac.  Dissenting  from  Verac's  opinion  as  to  his  reception,  and  giving  reasons 
to  show  that  Verac  was  wrong,  Sept.  4,  1781, 

From  Verac.  Pointing  out  the  mistake  made  by  Dana  as  to  the  mediation  agree- 
ment, and  repeating  his  opinion  that  an  application  for  reception  at  Court 
would  be  refused,  Sept.  12,  1781. 

To  Verac.  Regrets  that  his  incapacity  as  to  French  and  Verac's  as  to  English  in- 
terfere with  their  correspondence;  will  delay  for  a  while  presenting  himself 
to  the  Russian  Court,  Sept.  13,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Dissents  from  position  of  Verac;  thinks  that  he  will  have  no  aid 
from  France  in  pressing  for  reception;  views  as  to  mediation;  will  wait; 
however,  till  France  and  Si>ain  are  heard  from,  Sept.  15,  1781. 

The  object  of  France  was  to  save  him  from  the  humiliation  of  a  certain  repulse. 
Luzerne  to  Congress,  Sept.  21,  1781. 

To  Livingston.  Mentioning  article  in  French  draught  treaty  witli  Russia,  Oct.  1, 
1781. 

To  Congress.  Giving  his  views  of  the  armed  neutrality  and  of  the  project  of 
mediation  started  by  the  imperial  courts,  Oct.  15,  1781. 

From  Livingston,  Oct.  22,  1781. 
(See  Livingston  to  Dana,  same  date.) 

To  Ellenj.     Attitude  of  Russian  Court,  Jan.  17,  1782. 

From  Livingston.  Is  not  to  assume  a  public  character  unless  his  reception  is  cer- 
tain ;  instructions  as  to  position  be  is  to  take.  Mar.  3,  1782. 

To  Livingston.     View  of  public  affairs.  Mar.  5,  1782. 


74  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Dana,  Francis — Continued. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  15,  1762. 

(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
To  Livitxjston.     Foreign  political  affairs,  Mar.  30,  1782. 
To  Adams.     Affairs  iu  Russia,  A]n\  23,  1782. 
Estimate  of  his  expenses.     Livingston  to  Congress,  May  8,  1782. 
From  Livingston.     Instructed  not  to  press  mission  on  the  Russian  Court,  and   to 
follow  the  advice  in  this  respect  of  Franklin  and  the  French  minister,  May 
10,  1782. 
From  Adams,  May  13,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  22,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  29,  1782. 

(vSfie  Livingston  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Position  of  Rusua  as  to  American  trade,  Juno  28,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Position  of,  iu  Russia,  Aug.  30,  1782  ;  hia  attitude  at  St.  Peters- 
burg; position  of  Russia  as  to  neutral  rights  ;  fee  necessary  for  ministers  to 
pay  on  receptions  ;  salary  ;  precedency  among  ministers,  Sept.  5,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Sept.  17,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  18,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Russia  will  take  no  steps  towards  recognition  that  would  offend 

England,  Sept.  23,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     As  to  Russian  commerce  and  politics,  Sept.  2i),  1782. 
From  Adams,  Oct.  10,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Not  likely  that  Russia  will  take  part  in  the  war ;  Russian  ministry 
has  become  anti-Gallican,  and  tries  to  induce  Holland  to  make  a  separate  peace 
with  Britain,  Oct.  14,  1782. 
To  Adams.     Suspects  France  of  seeking  by  a  commercial  treaty  with  Russia  to  give 

a  preference  to  Russian  goods  over  the  United  States,  Oct.  15,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Refers  to  interested  adverse  motives  in  France;  notices  benefits 
which  might  accrue  to  Russia  from  commerce  with  the  United  States,  Nov.  1, 
1782. 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  7,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov,  8,  1782. 

(Sec  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Delay  in  presentation  of  his  credentials,  Nov.  18,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Dec.  G,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jay.     Advising  him  to  give  notice  of  his  mission.  Doc. 

12,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  17,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Dana,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Armed  neutrality  ;  reasons  why  ho  should  present  his  credentials, 

Dec.  21,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Proposes  to  leave  Russia  as  soon  as  he  is  received  at  Court  and 
commercial  tri^aty  signed;  complains  of  reduction  of  his  salary,  Dec.  27,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Will  not  at  once  press  for  reception  at  Court;   both  treaties  will 

cost  us  between  £<),0()0  and  £10,000,  Dec.  30,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Inclosing  note  of  treaty  between  Russia  and  Denmark,  Jan.  3, 
1783. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  75 

Dana,  Francis— Continued. 

To  Commissioners.     Explaining  liis  position,  Jan  14,  1783. 

To  Adams.     No  expectation  of  immediate  reception  at  Court,  Jan.  15,  1783, 

To  Livingston.  Has  received  copy  of  preliminary  treaty  of  peace,  but  is  advised 
by  French  minister  to  wait  before  presenting  himself  until  the  Court  is  offi- 
cially notified  of  peace ;  difficulties  between  Turkey  and  Russia,  Jan.  1;"),  1783. 

To  Livingslon.     Proposes  to  return  home  when  peace  is  settled,  Jan.  31,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     As  to  commercial  treaty,  Feb.  10,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Postpones  his  application  for  reception,  Feb.  25,  1783. 

His  continuance  in  Russia  no  longer  desirable.  Livingston  to  Congress,  Feb.  26, 
1783. 

(See  Madison  and  Hamilton  to  same  efi'ect.     Introduction,  $  4. 

To  Livingston.  Has  communicated  his  mission  to  the  vice-chancellor  "  without 
being  advised"  to  this  by  the  French  minister,  but  after  "  assurances  di- 
rectly from  the  private  cabinet  of  her  imperial  majesty  that  the  way  was 
perfectly  clear,"  Mar.  7,  1783. 

To  Ostermann.     Stating  his  mission,  Mar.  7,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     His  reception  postponed  on  account  of  "Lent,"  Mar.  12,  1783. 

To  Adams.  Admires  Adams'  independence  of  character;  cau  not,  however,  take 
Adams' advice  as  to  ofi'ering  a  commercial  treaty,  etc.,  to  Russia;  cannot 
get  an  answer  oven  as  to  his  reception,  at  Court ;  immense  taxes  imposed  on 
all  treaties.  Mar.  16,  1783. 

To  Livingston.  Is  still  without  an  answer  to  his  application  to  be  received;  can 
not  afford  to  remain  in  Russia  on  salary  allotted.  Mar.  22,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Again  applies,  but  without  answer,  Apr.  17,  1783. 

To  Livingston.  Appeals  again  to  vice-chancellor,  giving  reasons  why  he  should 
be  received,  Apr. 22,  1783. 

To  Livingston.  Empress  refuses  to  receive  him  until  definitive  treaty,  and  hot 
then  except  on  a  new  commission,  Apr.  25,  1783. 

From  Livingston.  Directing  his  return,  and  saying  that  he  has  no  power  to  sign  a 
commercial  treaty  ;  the  United  States  do  not  offer  presents  to  foreign  officials, 
May  1,  1783. 

From  Adams,  May  1,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Dana,  same  date.) 

To  Livingston.  Can  get  no  further  answer  from  the  Russian  vice-chancellor ;  con- 
siders the  refusal  to  receive  him  without  fresh  powers  unreasonable.  May  2, 
1783. 

To  Ostermann.  Remonstrating  with  the  hitter's  request  for  fresh  j)owers,  and 
giving  additional  reasons  why  the  Empress,  ''whose  glorious  reign  and 
eminent  virtues  have  so  long  fixed  the  attention  and  commanded  the  ap- 
plause of  the  world,"  should  receive  him,  May  8,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Has  had  no  answer  to  this  paper,  May  9,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     If  no  ansv/er  comes,  proposes  to  return  home,  May  15,  1783. 

Action  of  Congress  in  respect  to,  May  21,  22,  1783. 

From  Livingston.  Forwarding  such  action  and  complaining  of  defective  dis- 
patches, May  27,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Has  as  yet  no  answer  from  the  vice-chancellor.  May  30,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Treaty  with  Holland  ratified.  May  30,  1783. 

To  Adams.  As  yet  no  answer  to  his  memorial ;  sees  no  objection  to  paying  the 
"presents"  required  on  accession  to  treaty;  suspects  jealousy  of,  by  Frank- 
lin (?),  June  1,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Still  no  answer,  June  6,  1783. 

From  Congress.  Withdrawing  his  power  to  enter  into  armed  neutrality,  June  12, 
1783. 

To  Livingston.  That  he  is  officially  informed  that  he  will  be  received  as  soon  aa 
the  definitive  treaty  is  signed,  June  17,  1783. 


7G  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Dana,  Francis— Continued. 

To  Livingston.   No  information  as  to  definitive  treaty;  June  24,  17H3. 

To  LiviiKjsion.     Tilings  continue  as  they  were;  is  not  yet  received  as  minister; 

other  diplomatic  changes,  July  1,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Germany  and  Russia  form  alliance  against  Turkey,  July  8,  1783. 
To  Livingston.  Will  decline  presentation  to  Empress,  even  if  received,  July  27, 

1783. 
To  Adams.    Complaining  bitterly  of  his  treatment  by  Congress,  July  29,  1783. 
To  Livingston.    Announces  his  intention  to  leave  Russia  without  waiting  for  re- 

cejition,  and  gives  letter  advising  Count  Ostermaun  of  this,  Aug.  8, 1783. 
To  Livingston.     Giving  his  last  note  to  Ostermai?n,  and  narrating  his  visit,  put- 
ting his  withdrawal  on  the  ground  of  ill-health  not  permitting  him  to  remain  ; 

the  Empress  declines  to  receive  him  in  advance  of  signature  of  definitive 

treaty,  Aug.  17, 1783. 
To  Congress.   Notifyiug  his  return  home  and   readiness  to  meet  inquiry,  Dec. 

17, 1783. 
Dartmouth,  Lord,  presents  petition  of  1775.    Franklin  to  Thomson,  Feb.  5,  1775. 
Davis,  Nicholas,  suspicious  conduct  of.    Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb.  6, 1777. 
Deane,  Silas— 

His  Congressional  career.     Introduction,  $  159. 

His  business  usefulness  at  Paris.     Ihid.,  ^  160. 

His  loyalty  in  Paris.     Ihid.,  '^  101. 

Hard  treatment  of,  by  Congress.     Ihid.,  $  162.^ 

"  Intercepted  letters  of."     Ihid.,  ^  163. 

Views  of  George  III.     Ihid.,  ^  164. 

Position  of,  in  London  in  1784-'88.     Ihid.,  $  165. 

Explanation  of  his  course.     Ihid.,  §  166. 

Relief  given  to  his  heirs.     Ihid.,  §  167. 

From  Committee,  Feb.  14,  1776. 

(See  Committee  to  Deane,  same  date.) 
Instructions  to,  on  leaving  America,  Mar.  3,  1776. 
To  Beaumarcliais.    As  to  purchase  of  supplies  for  the  United  States ;  inquires  as 

to  credit  allowed ;  Congress  can  within  a  year  send  remittances  ;  gives  a  list 

of  articles  needed,  June  20,  1776. 
From  Beaumarcliais.     Confidential  correspondence  invited,  July  18,  1776. 
To  Beaumarcliais.     Approves  his  plan  for  regulating  price  of  supplies,  but  can  not 

insure  punctuality  of  payment ;  difficulties  in  forwarding  supplies ;  suspi- 
cion of  British  minister  aroused  and  great  care  required,  July  24,  1776. 
To  Dumas.     Proposing  a  visit  to  Amsterdam  and  also  correspondence,  July  26, 

1776. 
From  Committee.     Aug.  7,  1776. 

(See  Committee  (Morris)  to  Deane,  same  date.) 
To  Dumas.     His  journey  to  Holland  delayed;  will  not  travel  incog.',  appears  only 

as  a  private  merchant;  neutrality  of  Holland  is  all  that  is  claimed,  Aug.  16, 

1776. 
To  Committee.    Narrating  his  journey  to  Paris  ;  met  in  Paris  Bancroft,  Dubourg, 

and  T.  Morris ;  questionable  conduct  of  Penet;  activity  of  British  emissaries; 

position  of  European  affairs ;  defferences  between  Dubourg  and  Beaumarcliais ; 

Dubourg  renders  much  service;  Bancroft  supplies  much  information  as  to 

English  affairs  ;  his  expenses  jjaid,  Aug.  18,  1776. 
To  Beaumarcliais.     Must  rely  on  latter  for  chartering  vessels,  Aug.  19,  1776. 
To  Vergennes.     Is  surprised  at  arrival  of  A.  Lee  in  Paris;  is  likely  to  complicate 

matters,  Aug.  22,  1776. 
To  Dumas.     Approves  of  the  latter's  course;  inquires  if  mechanics  in  founding 

brass  and  iron  can  bo  found  to  go  to  America,  Sept.  11;  1776. 


KELIMINARY    INDEX.  77 

Deank,  Silas — Continued. 

To  lya-shhif/hni.     Intro<lucin<»;  La  Brosso,  Sept.  15,  1770. 

To  CominiUcc.     Intro(hKiii«;'  La  l{i().s«<',  Soj^t.  15,  1770. 

To  Committee.  Dang(!r.s  to  tins  cau.so  in  Paii.s  by  tlio  rc^portn  (;irculat»5(l  of  accom- 
modation with  Eoi^laiKi ;  orders  issncd  to  tsn.spcnd  tho  furnisliin^  of  Hup- 
plics;  this  was  couutcnuandcd  throu^li  Ji(%aumarcliai.s;  hostile  inllnence  of 
Hopkins,  of  JMiirylaiid  ;  friendly  services  of  IJaneroft  and  Carmichael  ;  im- 
portance of  inakinj^  interest  with  Prnssia  and  other  European  States,  Oct. 
I,  1770. 

From  Committee.  Informed  of  <;reat  need  of  supplies.  Seeret  Committee  to  Deane, 
Oct.  1,  1770. 

From  Committee.  Infornn'd  of  instructions  to  nc^gotiato  with  France,  and  that 
Franklin  and  Jelleison  have  been  added  ;  £10,000  to  be  dej)osit(Ml  in  France 
to  the  credit  of  Commissioners;  Wm.  Hodge  appointed  business  agent. 
Oct.  2,  1776. 

To  Committee.     Hisembarassing  position  without  advices  from  home,  Oct.  13,  1770. 

To  Dumas.  Independence  a  sine  qua  nan;  what  provisions  the  United  States  can 
send  to  Europe,  Oct.  6,  1770. 

To  Committee.  Efitect  of  Declaration  of  Independence;  importance  of  diverting 
British  attack;  high  price  of  tobacco;  importance  of  American  cruisers  in 
British  waters,  Oct.  8,  1770. 

To  Dumas.  Reconmiending  Carmichael;  also  will  give  intelligence  of  Paris 
mission,  Oct.  9,  1770. 

To  Dumas.     Want  of  information,  Oct.  13,  1770. 

Agreement  of,  for  hiring  vessels ;  articles  for  hiring  armed  vessels  etc.  Oct.  15, 
1770. 

From  Congress.     Additional  instructions  to,  Oct.  10,  22,  1770. 

To  Bingham.     Caribs  to  be  encouraged  to  revolt,  Oct.  17, 1770. 

To  Committee.  Complains  of  want  of  instructions  and  of  power  to  treat  as  repre- 
sentative of  an  independent  sovereign,  Oct.  17,  1776. 

To  Committee.     Introducing  De  Balme,  Oct.  17,  1776. 

From  Committee,  Oct.  23,  1770. 

(See  Committee,  etc.  (Morris),  to  Deane,  same  date.) 

From  Co  HI  wi^^ee.     Advising,  of  appointment  of  Franklin  and  Lee.     Oct.  24,  1776. 

To  Bingham.  Distressed  by  want  of  intelligence  ;  forwards  two  hundred  tons  of 
powder,  Oct.  25,  1770. 

To  Committee.  Two  hundred  tons  powder  furnished  through  Bingham  ;  high 
price  of  tobacco;  injury  done  by  failure  to  announce  independence,  Oct.  25, 
1770. 

To  Committee.  Reiterates  complaints  of  want  of  authority  ;  has  obtained  large 
supplies,  which  are  being  forwarded ;  recommends  Coudray  and  De  Kalb  ; 
high  price  of  American  x)roduce ;  plans  for  navy,  Nov.  6,  1776. 

Is  introduced  to  Dumas  as  agent  of  Congress.     Franklin  to  Dumas,  Nov.  22,  1770. 

To  Committee.     Notice  of  Tuscan  affairs,  Nov.  20,  1776. 

To  Committee.  Recommends  Rogers,  of  Maryland,  as  aid  to  Coudray,  Nov.  27, 
1776. 

To  Committee.  Exposure  of  English  fishery  at  Newfoundland  to  destruction,  Nov. 
27,  1776. 

To  Committee.  Receives  authority  to  present  Declaration  of  Independence  to 
European  Courts  ;  complains  of  want  of  formality  in  communications;  danger 
to  the  cause  of  reports  of  conciliation;  friendliness  of  house  of  Bourbon; 
again  complains  of  Williamson  ;  troubled  by  pressure  of  officers  for  commis- 
sions ;  troops  offered  from  abroad  ;  scarcity  of  next  harvest ;  saddle-horse 
asked  for  for  the  Queen ;  Coudray,  and  De  Kalb  recommended  for  appoint- 
ment ;  an  associate  eminent  in  position  asked  for,  Nov.  28,  1776. 


78  PRElvIMINARY    INDEX. 

Deane,  Silas — Continued. 

To  Committee.  Value  of  Beanmarchai's  services;  recommends  his  nephew;  calls 
for  supplies  esseotial  to  jiay  the  debts  due,  Nov.  29,177C. 

To  Committee.     Recommends  Conway,  Nov.  29,  1776. 

To  Committee.  Importance  of  taxation ;  loans  may  be  obtained  on  pledges  of 
land ;  financial  difficulties  of  France  ;  Holland  the  great  money-lender ;  sup- 
plies more  needed  in  the  United  States  than  money,  Dec.  1,  1870. 

To  Committee.     Details  of  his  shipment  of  supplies,  Dec.  3,  1776. 

To  Jay.  Details  further  his  shipments ;  renews  suggestions  of  attack  on  New- 
foundland fishery;  work  that  can  be  done  on  British  coast  b}^  privateers; 
loans  practicable,  and  foreign  ships  and  recruits  can  be  secured  ;  great  number 
of  applicants  for  posts  of  officers ;  value  of  Bancroft's  services ;  proposals  for 
treaties  with  France  and  Spain,  Dec.  3,  1776. 

From  Franklin,  Dec.  4,  1776. 

(See  Frankliti  to  Deane,  same  date.) 

To  Committee.  Sends  copy  of  his  agreement  with  French  officers,  and  also  ac- 
counts ;  suggestion  as  to  appointment  of  Prince  Ferdinand  or  "  Marshal  Brog- 
lio"  as  commander-in-chief;  recommends  La  Fayette  as  major-general,  Dec. 
6,  1776.     (See  introduction,  ^  97.) 

To  Vergennes.     Announces  Franklin's  arrival  and  its  effect,  Dec.  8,  1776. 

To  Committee.     Of  same  purport,  Dec.  12,  1776. 

To  Dumas.     Of  same  purport,  Dec.  13,  1776. 

To  Dumas.  As  to  his  situation  in  Paris;  Carmichael's  visit  to  Dumas;  hopeful 
of  success,  Dec. — ,  1776. 

To  Committee.     Difficulties  in  expediting  the  Ampkitrite,  Jan,  20,  1777. 

To  Committee.     Advises  sending  cruisers  abroad.     Aug.  23,  1777. 

To  Committee.  Explains  English  jealousy  ;  advises  Congress  as  to  ship  ffewreuse, 
and  asks  for  return  cargo,  directed  to  Hortalez  &  Co.,  Sept.  3,  1777. 

Hiy  authority  to  appoint  officers  denied  by  Congress,  Sept.  8, 1778. 

To  Committee.     Introduces  Francy,  with  cargo  of  goods,  Sept.  10,  1777. 

To  R.  Morris.     Vindicating  himself  for  his  action  as  to  T.  Morris,  Sept.  23,  1777. 

Recall  of,  by  Congress,  Nov.  21,  1777. 

From  Committee,  etc.,  Dec.  4,  1777. 

(See  Committee,  etc.,  to  Deane,  same  date.) 

From  Lovdl.     Ordered  to  return  to  America,  Dec.  8,  1777. 

Franklin  speaks  kindly  of,  to  Lovell,  Dec.  21,  1777. 

Vergennes'  testimonial  to.  Vergennes  to  Congress,  Mar.  25,  1778  ;  Vergennes  to 
Deane  (inclosing  King's  portrait).  Mar.  26,  1778. 

Franklin  speaks  kindly  of,     Franklin  to  Congress,  Mar.  31,  1778. 

Denouuced  to  Laurens  by  Izard.     Izard  to  Laurens,  Apr.  1,  1778. 

A.  Lee's  views  of.     A,  Lee  to  Congress,  Apr.  2,  5, 1778. 

His  plaus  in  going  to  America.     Franklin  to  Lee,  Apr.  4,  1778. 

To  Congress.     Arrival  in  America,  July  10,  1778. 

To  Lovell.     Asking  for  a  hearing,  July  28,  1778. 

To  Washington.  Acknowledging  friendly  letter  and  hoping  for  an  interview 
(the  letter  so  referred  to  can  not  be  found  among  the  Washington  or  Deane 
papers  in  the  Department),  Aug.  12,  1778. 

Informs  Congress  that  he  is  in  Philadelphia  awaiting  their  orders.  Deane  to  Con- 
gress, Sept.  8,  14,  1778. 

Action  of  Congress  on  his  case,  Sept.  14,  16,  18,  22,  1778. 

To  Hancock.     Complains  of  conduct  of  Congress,  Sept.  14,  1778. 

To  Congress.     Soliciting  hearing.  Sept  22,  1778. 

To  Congress.     Asks  for  copies  of  Izard's  attacks  on  him,  Sept.  24,  177S. 

To  Congress.     Asks  for  hearing,  Oct.  7, 1778. 

To  Congress.  Semis  replies  to  Izird  and  Lee  (containing  inclosures) ;  explains 
iihanges  in  articles  11  and  12  of  treaty,  Oct.  12,  1778. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  79 

Deank,  Silas— Contitnu'd. 

Procecdinjrs  of  Congress,  as  to,  Oct.  14,  1778. 

To  Congress.     Suggesfcioius  as  to  debt  and  as  to  cqu imping  ;i  fleet,  Nov.  1,  1778. 

To  Congress.     Fiatlier  dofeuse  of  course  and  appeal  for  action,  Nov.  11),  30,  Dec. 

4,  30,  31,  1778. 
Proceedings  of  Congress  as  to,  Dec.  7,  22,  31,  1778. 
To  Congress.     Notices  attack  by  Paine,  Jan.  4,  1771), 
To  Congress.     A.sks  to  be  heard,  Jan.  21,  1779. 

His  address  to  America  criticised.     Adams  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  11,  1779. 
Vergennes'  reply  to,  Feb.    13,   1771). 
Bad  effects  of  his  appeal.     Adams  to  S.  Adams,  Feb.  14,  1771);  to  Vergennes,  Feb. 

16,  1779. 
Vergennes'  views  of.      Vergennes  to  A.  Lee  (with  note),  Feb.  15,   1779. 
A.  Lee  writes  to  Franklin  as  to,  Feb.  18,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Again  nrges  action  in  his  case,  Feb.  22,  1779. 
Further  criticisms  by  A.  Lee  to  Congress,  Mar.  7,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Again  applies  for  a  hearing,  Mar.  15,  1779. 
Criticisms  of,  by  W.  Lee  to  Congress,  Mar.  10,  25,  1779. 

To  Congress.     Again  appeals  to  Congress  for  redress.  Mar.  29,  Apr.  2,  17,  1779. 
To  Holker.     Asks  as  to  mistakes  in  accounts,  Apr.  2C,  1779. 
(See  Holker' s  reply  of  same  date.) 

To  Congress.     Addresses  again  for  hearing,  Apr.  26,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Explains  as  to  Holker's  mistake,  Apr.  27,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Submits  accounts  of  exiienses,  Apr.  30,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Appeals  again  for  a  hearing,  May  19,  22,  1779. 
Lovell's  views  as  to.     Lovell  to  Adams,  June  13,  1779. 
Discharged  from  attendance  on  Congress  in  order  that  he  may  settle  his  accounts. 

Journal  of  Congress,  Aug.  16,  1779. 
To  Congress.   Application  for  hearing,  Aug.  18,  1779. 
Opinion  of.    FranlcUn  to  Lovell,  Oct.  17, 1779. 

To  Congress.    Declines  to  accept  grant  by  Congress  of  $10,500  on  ground  of  in- 
adequacy, Nov.  23,  1779. 
Expected  arrival  of,  in  France.   Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9,  1780. 
From  Jay,  Sept.  8,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Deane,  same  date. ) 
His  disloyal  talk  in  1780.    Dana  to  Adams,  Jan.  1,  1781.    (Though  see  Franklin  to 

Dumas,  Jan.  18,  1781.) 
So  in  1782.    Franklin  to  Livingston,  Mar.  4,  1782. 
To  Congress.   Finds  that  Johnson  had  declined  to  examine  his  accounts;  urges  on 

Congress  to  take  other  measures  for  settlement ;  appeals  for  justice  in  his 

necessities.  May  18,  1781. 
To  Trumbull.    Dissuading  from  a  further  prosecution   of  the  war,  and  urging  a 

submission  at  once  to  the  mother  country,  Oct.  21, 1781.    (See  Introduction, 

«  163.  ) 
Letters  of,  written   for  publication   and  not  for  delivery  to  sendee.     Paine  to 

Morris,  Nov.  26,  1781.     (See  Introduction,  §  163.) 
luculpatory  letters;  parties  abroad  to  be  warned  against.     Livingston  to  Congress, 

Jan.  18,  1782;  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  Jau.   19,  1782;  Livingston  to  Franklin, 

Jan.  19,  1782. 
His  probable  treachery.     Franklin  to  Jay,  Jan.  19,  1782. 

''No  doubt  is  entertained  here  of  his  apostacy."     Livingston  to  Jay,  Feb.  2,  1782. 
Apostacy  of,  confirmed.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  Mar.  4,  1782. 
To  Congress.     Appeals  again  for  settlement  of  accounts,  Mar.  17,  1782. 
His  disgrace ;  but  should  be  paid  what  is  due  him.    Franklin  to  Morris^  Mar.  30^ 

1782. 


80  PKELIMINAKY    INDEX. 

Dean,  Silas — Continued. 

Inculpatory  letters  of.     Trumimll  to  Linhigstou,  May  23,  1782;  Livitujston  to  Lw 

zcrnc,  June  7,  1782.     Livingston  to  Tnimhall^  June  12,  1782. 
Associates  in  England  with  Arnold,  P.  Weutwortb,  and  Skeane.     Adams  to  Liv- 
ingston, Aug.  2,  1783. 
Exatninatiou  of  his  accounts.     Morris  to  A.  Lee,  <3ct.  4,  1783. 
Repudiated  by  Jay.     Jay  to  Beano,  Feb.  22,  1784. 
Relations  with  Beaumarchais.     (See  Beaamarchais.) 
Deane  and  Franklin — 

From  A.  Lee,  Jan.  30,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin  and  Deane,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  26,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin  and  Deane,  same  date.) 
Debt,  Public.     (See  France,  Franklin,  Morris,  Vergennes ;  and  see  Carmichael  to  the 

Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Jan.  29,  1781.) 
De  Campo,  Spanish  minister.     Procrastination  of.     Jay  to  Livingston,  Apr.  28,  1782. 
Declaration  OF  Independenck.    Importance  of  announcement  of,  abroad.    Deane  to 

Committee,  Nov.  6,  28,  1776. 
Decoy  and  false  information  communicated  through  Arthur  Lee's  secretaries.     Intro- 
duction, $  151. 
Defence,  ship,  representations  as  to.     Gerard  to  Congress,  July  5,  26,  1779. 
Definitive  treaty  of  1783 — 

Propositions  relative  to,  given  under   date  of  Apr.  29,  May  21,  June  1,  1783. 
Hartley  to  Commissioners,  June  14,  1783. 
(See  Hartley  to  Franklin.) 
Hartley's  proposals,  May  21,  1783.     (See  Treaties.) 
Articles  proposed  by  American  Commissioners,  Apr.  29,  1783. 
Articles  proj)osed  by  Hartley,  May  21,  1783.     Hartley  to  Commissioners,  June  14, 
1783;  Laurens  to  Secretary,  June  17,  1783. 
(See  Adams,  Franklin,  Laurens,  Livingston,  Jay.) 
Signed  Sept.  4,  1783.     Hartley  to  Commissioners,  Sept.  4,  1783 :  Commissioners  to 

Hartley,  Sept.  5,  1783;  Adams  to  Congress,  Sept.  5,  1783. 
Negotiations  preceding  detailed ;  notice  of  its  intended  signature  given  to  France. 

Commissioners  to  Congress,  Sept.  10,  1783. 
Ratification  of,  by  Congress,  Oct.  29,  1783.     Mifflin  to  Commissioners,  Jan.  14,  1784. 
Definitive  treaty — 

Ratification  of.  Hartley  to  Franklin,  Mar.  9, 1784  ;  Franklin  to  Thomson,  Mar.  9, 
1784;  Hartley  to  Laurens,  Mar.  26,  1784;  Laurens  to  Thomson,  Mar.  28,  17n4; 
Franklin  to  Congress,  May  12, 1784  ;  Hartley  to  Franklin,  June  1,  1784  ;  Frank- 
lin to  Hartley,  JnuQ  2,  1784;  Franklin  to  Congress,  June  16,  1784;  Jay  to  Con- 
gress, July  25, 1784.  (See  Treaties.) 
De  Gkasse.     Two  pieces  of  field  ordnance  presented  to,  by  Congress.     Livingston  to 

Luzerne,  Nov.  2, 1781. 
De  Kalb.     (See  Kalb. ) 
Delap,  Samuel  and  J.  H. — 

To  receive  prizes  at  Bordeaux.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  24, 1770. 

Prisoners  aid  to  the  United  States.     Deane  to  Committee,  Dec.  3, 1776. 
Delvoerme.     Introduced  by  Franklin  to  Livingston,  Apr.  27, 1783. 
Denmark — 

Restitution  of  American  prizes,  protest  against.     Franklin  to  Bernstoff,  Dec.  22, 
1779. 

Relations  with.     Franklin  to  Congress,  May  31, 1780. 

Declaration  of  neutrality  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  14, 1780. 

Complains  of  seizure  of  the  ship  Providence.     Vergennes  to  Franklin,  Apr.  23,  1782. 


:7 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  81 

Dknmauk — Coutiuucd. 

Proposals  for  treaty  with.     Bosencrone  to  Wultersdorjf,  Fob.  22,  1783;  Franklin  to 

Rosencrone,  Apr.  13,  1783. 
Couuter  project  of  treaty  with.     lioseucrone  to  Franklin,  July  8,  1783 ;  Franklin 

to  Livingston,  July  22,  1783. 
Claims  ou  to  bo  pressed.     Resolution  of  Congress,  Oct.  21),  1783. 
Denmark  and  Norway.    Treaty  botwoeu Russia,  Swodeu,  Hollaud,  and.     Adams  to 

Congress,  Feb.  1, 1781. 
Deserters,  Hessiau,  may  be  received  iu  the  French  army.     Reed  to  Luzerne,  July 

25,  1780. 
Desertion  of  loyalists  by  British  armies.     Introduction,  $  24.     (See  Loyalists.) 

D'ESTAING — 

Sailing  of  fleet  of.     Louis  XFI  to  Congress,  Mar.  28,  1778. 
Informs  Congress  of  his  approach  and  of  liis  plans,  July  8,  1778. 
Speaks  of  his  support  of  Gerard,  etc.  ;  action  of  Congress  on,  July  11,  1778. 
Movements  of,  Gerard  to  Congress,  May  d,  1779. 

Expected  to  go  to  America.     Carniichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  29,  1781. 
Destouches— 

To  Luzerne.     Prevented  from  disembarking  troops  in  Virginia  by  the  British 

fleet;  battle  between  the  two  fleets.  Mar.  19,  1781. 
From  Luzerne,  May  7,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Destouches,  same  date.) 
De  Witt.     Opinion  of  Franklin.     Introduction,  6  115. 
Dickinson,  chosen  member  of  Committee   of  Correspondence.     Secret  Journals  of 

Congress,  Nov.  29,  1775. 
Dickinson,  the  treachery  of  crew  of.    A.  Lee  to  Golden,  Apr.  15,  1776. 
Dig BY — 

From  Franklin,  Mar.  24,  1783. 

(S(^e  Franklin  to  Digby,  same  da>te.) 
F'rom  Carleton,  Apr.  6,  1783. 

(See  Carleton  to  Dighy,  same  date.) 
From  Liringslon,  Apr.  12,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Dighy,  same  date.) 
DiGGES,  "  Mr.,"  recommended  to  Congress  for  employment  in  the  United  States.     A. 
Lee  to  Committee,  Dec.  8, 1777.     See  Introduction,  '^^206. 
To  Adams.     Giving  information  as  to  English  afl'airs.     Digges  to  Adams,  April  14. 

1780. 
His  doubtful  character  and  charges  against  him.     Id.     See  Introduction,  ^  206. 
To  Adams.     Conway's  and  Hartley's  motions  relative  to  America  ;  fallaciousness 
of  the  hope  Conway  seems  to  entertain  of  peace  without  the  independence  of 
America ;  suspicious  that  he  is  aiming  at  the  chief  command,  May  2, 1780. 
To  Adams.     Giving  English  news,  May  12, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Digges,  stating  position  of  the  United  States,  May  13, 1780.) 
His  atrocious  wickedness  in  embezzling  money  given  him  to  distribute  among 
prisoners.    Franklin  to  Hodgson,  Apr.  1, 1781 ;  Franklin  to  Brown,  Aug.  6, 1781 ; 
Franklin  to  Jay,  Aug.  30, 1781 ;  Franklin  to  Cunningham,  Feb.  6, 1782. 
Recommended  by  Hartley,  Mar.  11, 1782. 
Addresses  Franklin,  Mar.  22, 1782. 

Conversation  with,  reported.     Adams  to  Franklin,  Mar.  22, 1782. 
Franklin  has  no  confidence  in.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Apr.  8, 1782, 
Diplomacy,  conflicting  views  as  to.     Introduction,  ^^S  15. 

Relations  of  to  finance  and  military  science.     Ibid.,  ^^  Iff. 
Founded  on  good  sense.     Ibid.,  §  13. 
A  system  of  comity  resting  on  settled  rules,     Ibid.,  ^  15, 
^  6  WH 


82  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Diplomacy — Continued. 

Antagonisui  to  tlieso  rules  by  the  "  militia"  school  of  statesmen.     Ibid.,  ^^  15, 16. 
Views  of,  held  by  tliis  school.     Ibid.,  ^  16. 
Replies  by  Franklin  and  Livingston.     Ibid.,  ^  17. 
Diplomacy,  revolutionary,  difficulties  of^ 

From  its  domestic  organization.     libd.,  ^  103. 
From  vacillation  of  Congress.     Ibid.,  ^  104. 
From  difficulties  of  communication.     Ibid.,  ^  105. 
From  unnecessary  multiplication  of  envoys.     Ibid.,  ^  106. 
From  extraneous  burdens.     Ibid.,  ^07. 

From  want  of  propci-  funds  and  proper  aid  at  Paris.     Ibid.,  ^  708. 
From  delicacy  of  position  to  France.     Ibid.,  '^  109. 
Dirierence  of  opinion  as  to  stringency  of  instructions.     Ibid.,  v^  110. 
Diplomatic  agents,  salaries  of.    Livingston  to  Congress,  Nov.  18,  1781. 

{Sue  Expenses,  Ministers,  Salaries.) 
DiPLO.MATiC  COURESPONDENCE  in  Revolution.    Difficulty  in  keeping  up.  Introduction, 

V>  105. 
Diplomatic  EXPENSES,  estimate  of.    Adams  to  Franklin,  Oct.  4,  1781 ;     Livingston  to 
Congress,  May  8,  9,  1782 ;  Morris  to  Congress  May  8,  1782. 
(See  Salaries.) 
Diplomatic  manners.    Medium  to  be  observed  in  respect  to.     Adams  to  S.  Adams, 

Mar.  4,  1780. 
Diplomatists.    Adams'  views  of  qualifications  for.    Adams  to  Livingston,  Feb.  5,  1783. 
Dis.\bled  persons.     Proclamation  of  the  States-General  that  provision  will  be  made 

for,  in  the  sea  service,    uidams  to  Congress,  Jan.  18, 1781. 
Dissensions  BETWEEN  ministers  at  Pahis.    Circumstances  concerning.     Introduc- 
tion, ^§  106,  126,  149. 
Proceedings  of  Congress  as  to.     Sept.  11,  22,  Oct.  15,  Dec.  7,  1778  ;  Jan.  20,  Mar. 
24,  27,  Apr.  3,  30,  May  3,  June  8,  10,  1779. 
Dohrman — 

From  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs.     Made  agent  of  Congress  in  Portugal  July  11, 
1780. 
(See  LoveU  a.nd  Houston  to  Dohrman,  same  date.) 
Respectable  character  of.     Jay  to  LoveU,  Oct.  27,  1880. 
Doniol — 

His  views  as  to  Beaumarchais.     Introduction,  »sS  .58. 
Views  of  as  to  A.  Leo's  differences  with  Franklin.     Ibid.,  ^  145. 
Views  of,  as  to  treaties  of  1778.     Ibid.,  ^  45. 
Double  dealing  of  1688  contrasted  with  that  of  1776.     Ibid.,  ^  8. 
Douceurs  to  foreign  officials.   The  United  States  will  not  give.     Livingston  to  Dana, 

May  1,  1783.     Proceedings  of  Congress,  May  21,  1783. 
DowLiN.    From  Franklin,  Feb.  9, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  DowUn,  same  date.) 
Drayton,  W.  H.,  communicates  to  Congress  aversion  of  French  and  Spanish  courts 

to  A.  Lee,  Apr.  30,  1779. 
DuiiOURG— 

His  position  a-s  to  America.     Introduction,  $  74. 
Characteristics  of.     Ibid.,  v^  74. 

Will  introduce  Deaue,  and  procure  him  an  interview  with  Vergennes.     Commit- 
tee of  Correspondence  to  Deane,  Mar.  3,  1776. 
Misunderstanding  between  Beaumarchais  and.    Deaneio  Committee,  Aug.  18,  1776. 
Du  CoUDRAY.     See  Coudray. 
Dumas,  C.  W.  F.— 

His  public  services.     Introduction,  $  185, 

A.  Lee  is  directed  to  correspond  with.     Committee  to  A.  Lee,  Dec.  12,  1775. 


ritELlMlNAKY    INDEX.  83 

Dumas — ContiniuMl. 

From  FranJdin,  Dec.  19,  1775. 

(Sc<3  Fnuildin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Fraiihlhi,  Mar.  22,  177G. 

(Sec  FrioihUn  to  DnmaH,  same  date.) 
To  FraulcViu.  Accepting  appoiutmeiit  as  correspoiideut ;  America  should  rely 
in  the  lirst  i)lacc  on  France;  has  conferred  on  the  snhject  with  the  French 
minister  at  Holland,  who  will  send  memorial  to  his  conrt;  corresponds  with 
A.  Lee;  Storey's  letters  intercepted;  can  r  commend  an  enj^ineer;  refers 
with  satisfaction  to  his  writinj^js,  Apr.  WO,  177(5. 
To  Franklin.     Attitude  of  France  at  present  must  be  one  of  non-interference, 

May  14,  177(). 
From  A.  Lie,  July  <>,  177(3. 

(See  J.  Lee  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  July  2G,  1776. 

(See  Deanc  to  Vumas,  same  date.) 
To  Commillee.     Gives  correspondence  with  French  minister  in  Holland  ;  refers  to 

Dr.  Ellis  as  a  contldential  agent,  Aug.  10,  1776. 
From  A.  Lee,  Aug.  13,  1776. 

(See  A,  Lee  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Aug.  18,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Commitfee.     Non-appearance  so  far  of  "  Hortalez  ;"  arrival  in  Paris  of  Deane; 
will  continue  to  act  as  agent  in  Holland,  but  hopes  for  compensation,  Sept, 
1,  1776. 
From  W.  Lee,  Sept.  10,  1776. 

(See  ir.  Lee  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Sept.  11,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  ./.  Lee,  Sept.  23, 1776. 

(See  A.  T^ee  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
Froui  FranMin,  Oct.  1,  1776. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Oct.  3,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Oct.  6,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Oct.  9,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Oct.  13,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Carmiehael,  Oct.  22,  1776. 

(See  Carmiehael  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Oct.  24,  1776. 

(See  Committee,  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Carmiehael,  Oct.  27,  1776. 

(See  Carmiehael  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Nov.  15,  1776. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Dec.  13,  1776, 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Dec.  — ,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Carmiehael,  Jan.  21,  1777. 

(See  Carmiehael  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 


8^  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Dumas — Contiuiied. 

From  A.  Lee,  Jan.  26,  1777. 

(Seo  A.  Lee  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Franldin,  Jan.  29,  1777, 

(See  FranMin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  W.  Lee,  Mar.  21,  1777. 

(See  TV.  Lee  to  Dumas,  sauie  date.) 
From  Deane,  Apr.  2,  1777. 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
Payment  to,  by  Deane,  Apr.  2,  1777. 
To  Committee,  as  to  his  services,  Apr.  12    1777. 
From  Carmichael,  Apr.  28,  1777. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  May  8,  1777. 

(See  Conlmittec,  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  May  9,  1777, 

(See  Carmichael  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  May  12,  1777, 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To   Committee.     Uses  signature  of  "Concordia;"  information  from  The  Hague, 

May  16,  1777. 
From  Deane,  June  7,  1777. 

(See  Deane  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  June  i:},  1777. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Dumas,  same  date. ) 
To  Committee.     Complains  of  embarrassed  j)08ition  and  gives  information,  Aug. 

22,  1777. 
To  Committee.     Condition  of  affairs  in  Holland,  Oct.  14,  Dec.  16,  1777. 

(See  Van  Berekel  to  i)wmas, same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  10, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Apr.  10, 1778. 

(See  Franklin,  Lee,  and  Adams  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  May  14, 1778. 

(See  Morris,  E.  77.  Lee,  and  Lovell  to  7>Mmas,  same  date.) 
From  ^.  Zee.  June  4, 1778. 

(See  ^.  Lee  to  Dumas,  same  d.ite.) 
From  Van  Berekel,  Ju\y  31,1778. 

To  Committee.     View  of  Dutch  affairs,  Oct.  27,  Nov,  4,  10,  13,  1778. 
To  Van  Berekel.     Affairs  in  Holland,  Aug.  17, 1778. 
From  Van  Berekel.     Saying  that  Amsterdam  has  no  power  to  make  treaties,  Sept. 

22,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Oct.  16, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     British  interference  in  Holland,  Nov.  26,  Dec.  3,18,25,  1778. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  18, 1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Chatimont,  Sept.  2, 1779. 

(See  Chaumont  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Fai(5fj/j/o«,  Nov.  11,1779. 

(See  Vauguyon  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Vauguyon,  naval  affairs,  Nov.  11, 13, 1779. 
From  Vauguyon,  Nov.  12, 1779. 

(See  Vauguyon  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  FaM^rwyon,  Nov.  17,1779. 

(See  Vauguyon  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  85 

Dumas — Continued. 

From  J.  r.  Jones,  Dec.  13, 1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Jones,  same  date.) 
From  J.  F.  Jones,  Dec.  17, 1779. 

(See  Jones  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  J.  P.  Jones,  Dec.  27, 1779. 

(See  Jones  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Reports  condition  of  affairs  in  Holland,  .Jan.  1,12,  Mar.  1,  Apr.  29, 

May  15,  Sept.  14, 20,  Dec.  9, 1779. 
To  Vau<juyon.     Takes  action  in  case  of  Paul  .Tones,  Nov.  9, 11, 13, 1779. 
To  Congress,  Dec.  10,  11,  30, 1779. 
From  FraiiJclin,  Jan.  27, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congnss.     Sends  plan  of  treaty;  gives  views  as  to  Holland,  Mar.  1.5,  1780, 
To  Congress.     His  claim  for  remuneration  for  services,  Mar.  21,  1780. 
From  Franllin,  Mar.  29,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  30, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Injury  done  him  by  W.  Lee  ;  affairs  in  Holland,  Apr.  13, 1780. 
From  Franklin.     Personal  advice,  Apr.  23, 1780. 
To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland,  May  21, 1780. 
From  Franklin,  June  5,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  5, 1780.  ^ 

(See  Adams  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  22, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
Unfounded  criticisms  of,  by  W.  Lee.      W.  Lee  to  Adams,  July  8, 1780. 
Spokeu  liighly  of.     Lovell  to  Dumas,  Julj  10,  1780. 
To  Congress.     As  to  Dutch  affairs,  July  13,22,  1780. 
From  Carmichael,  July  24,  1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Desires  formal  commission  ;  narrates  his  services  and  asks  com- 
pensation, July  25, 1780. 
To  Congress.     As  to  late  European  events,  Sept.  12,  Oct.  2, 1780 
From  J.  P.  Jones,  Sept.  8,  1780. 

(See  Jams  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
Promotion  of,  recommended.     Livingston  to  Congress,  Sept.  11,  12, 1780 ;  Livingston 

to  Dumas,  Sept.  12, 1780. 
To  Congress.     Narrative  of  affairs  in  Holland,  Sept.  25,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  2,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Late  European  events,  Sept.  12,  Oct.  2, 1780. 
From  Adams,  Oct.  4,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Dumas,  same  date.  ) 
Letters  from  London  to,  Oct.  (>,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Detailing  inipri.sonment  and  capture  of  IT.  Ijaurens,  Oct.  0,1780. 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  9, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
His  critical  position  at  Holland.     Carmicliael  to  Committee,  Nov.  28, 1780. 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  3, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Duman,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Attitude  of  Holland  to  Sir  J.  Yorke  ;  j)roject  of  treaty  with  United 
States,  Dec.  19,  1780. 


86  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Dumas — Continued. 

From  Morris,  Dec.  24, 1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  FranMiii,  Jan.  18,1781. 

(See  FranMin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.  Good  understanding  between  Holland  and  Russia  in  regard  to  neu- 
trality; rupture  between  Russia  and  England;  application  should  bo  made 
to  the  quadruple  alliance  for  an  acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of  the 
United  States;  shipment  of  grain  refused  to  England;  departure  of  Sir  Jo- 
seph Yorke,  Feb.  5,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Decision  of  the  court  of  Holland  as  to  the  conduct  of  tlie  regency 

of  Amsterdam  not  given,  Feb.  22, 1781. 
To  Congress.     Empress  of  Russia  offers  to  mediate  between  Holland  and  England, 

Mar.  2, 1781. 
To  Congress.     Empress  of  Russia  renews  her  offer  of  mediation  ;  the  court  of  jus- 
tice making  up  its  decision  on  the  conduct  of  the  regency  of  Amsterdam, 
Mar.  5, 1781. 
To  Congress.     Holland  accepts  luediation  ;  decision  of  the  court  of  justice  as  to 
the  regency  of  Amsterdam  ;  inaction  in  Holland  continues;  St.  Eustatia  cap- 
tured by  the  British  ;  England  refuses  the  mediation  of  Russia ;  merchants  of 
Amsterdam  ask  those  of  Rotterdam  to  join  with  them  in  asking  the  English 
to  restore  the  goods  taken  at  St.  Eustatia,  who  refuse,  Mar.  22,  Apr.  2,  1781. 
From  Bedaulx,  Apr.  28, 1781. 

(See  Bedaulx  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland,  May  1, 1781. 
From  Franklin,  May  4, 1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland,  May  1, 1781. 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  6, 1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  10, 1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  8a,me  date.) 
To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland,  Aug.  23,  Oct.  11, 1781. 
From  Liringston,  Nov.  28, 1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Affairs  in  Holland,  Jan.  7, 1782. 
To  Congress.     Reception  of  Adams,  Jan.  15, 1782. 
To  Congress.     Advantages  of  a  bouse  for  the  legation,  Apr.  4, 1782. 
To  Livingston.     Affairs  in  Holland,  Mar.  29,  May  10,  June  1, 1782 
From  Adams,  May  2, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Liringston.     Information  from,  Aug.  16, 1782. 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  5,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Sept.   12,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Narrative  of  affairs  in  Holland,  Nov.  15,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Recent  events  in  Holland,  Dec.  12,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Local  affairs  in  Holland,  Dec.  17,  1782. 
From  Adams,  .Tan.  1,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Dumas,  same  date.)  ^ 

To  Livingston.    Phin  to  send  Dutch  minister  to  tlie  United  States,  Jan.  11,  1783.    * 
To  Livingston.     Diplomatic  affairs,  Jan.  20,  1783. 
To  Adams.     Diplomatic  affairs,  Jan.  28,  178  J. 
(Replied  to  by  Adan)s,  Jan.  29,  1783.) 


PRELTMINAHY    INDIOX.  87 

Dumas  —Continued. 

To  Adams.     Diplomatic  affairs,  Jan.  30,  1783. 

To  Adams.     Onerous  couilitions  of  peace  imposed  on  Holland  ;  Vergcnnes,  expla- 
nation of  precipitancy  of  peace,  Feb.  4,  1783. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  5,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Continued  Dntcli  difficulties  as  to  peace,  Feb.  18,  1783. 
To  Lh'uu/ston.     Statinj;  appointment  of  Van  Bcrckel  as  minister  to  the  United 

States,  Mar.  4,  5,  1783. 
To  Adams.     Instrnctions  as  to  peace,  Mar.  4,  G,  1783. 
To  Livitujsfou.     Affairs  in  HolLnul,  Mar.  27,  Apr.  18,  1783. 
From  LivuKjsfou.     Congress  lias  taken  no  action  in  liis  case  (no  date;)- 
To  Livingston.     Difficulties  with  Dutch;  British  peace.  May  8,  1783. 
To  Livinfjston.     As  to  Dutch  affairs  and  I  ho  mission  of  Van  Borckel,  May  25,  1783. 
To  States  General.     Submits  treaty  with  the  United  States  as  ratified,  June  5, 1783. 
From  Fagel,  June  19,  1783. 

(See  Fagel  to  Dumas,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     As  to  affaiis  in  Holland,  June  20,  23,  1783. 
Dumas  (General).     Introduction,  ^  78. 

Dunkirk  made  a  free  port  to  the  United  States.     Calonve  to  La  Fagette,  Jan.  .'3,  1784. 
Du  Ponceau,  recommended  as  an  officer.     Livingston  to  Congress,  Dec.  2,  1782.     See 

Introduction,  ^  78. 
DuPORTAiL.     Notice  of,  Introduction,  ^S  78. 
.    Contract  with,  Feb.  13,  1777. 
Action  of  Congress  as  to.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Jan.  15,  1779. 
Letter  commending.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Nov.  24,  1781. 
Commended  to  Vergenues.     Franklin  to  Yergenncs,  Feb.  2, 1782. 
Durham's  case.     Luzerne  to  Livingston,  May  17,  1783. 
DuRAT.     From  Luzerne,  Dec.  11,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Durat,  same  date.) 
Dutch  politics.     (See  Netherlands,  Adams,  Dumas,  Franklin.) 
Dutch  ships  exempted  from  capture.     Franklin  to  agent  of  cruisers,  May  30,  1780. 

E. 

Economy.     Importance  of,  in  public  affairs.     Franklin  to  Morris,  Nov.  5,  1781. 
Ellery.     From  Dana,  Jan.  17,  1782. 

(See  Dava  to  Ellery,  same  date.) 
EiERSTEiN,  ship.     Case  of.     Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Yeh.  18,1782;  Livingston  to  Luzerne, 

Fel).  20,  1782 ;  Livingstoh  to  Congress,  Feb.  21,  1782. 
Elliott,  British  mioister  at  Berlin,  charged  with  abstracting  A.  Lee's  papers.     ,/.  Lee 
to  Commissioners,  Juno  28,  1777,  with  note  ;  Frederick  the  Great  to   Maltzam, 
June  30,  1777.     (See  Introduction,  ovN  144, 150,  192  #.) 
Ellis.  Dr.,  an  intermediary  in  foreign  negotiations  of  177G.     A.  Lee  to  Dumas,  July 

6,  177G ;  Dumas  to  Committee,  Aug.  10,  1776. 
Eloquence,  cultivated  with  peculiar  care  in  republics.     Adams  to  Congress,  Sept.  8, 

1780. 
Embden,  port  of — 

Affords  a  good  market.      /F.  Lee  to  Thomson,  Jan.  2,  1778. 
Refused  by  Fredeiick  to  Congress.     Introduction,  §  91. 
Emperor  Joseph  II.     Policy  of,  towards  America.     Ibid.,  ^  96. 
Empress  Catherinh  II.     Policy  of,  towards  America.     Ibid.,  vS^S  93,94. 

(See  Catherine  II,  Russia,  Dana.) 
Engineers — 

Resolution  of  congress  directing  coinmitteo  to  engage   services  of.     Secret  Jour- 
nals of  Congress,  Dee.  2,  1775. 


88  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Engineers — Continued. 

Dnmas  is  asked  to  engage.     Franklin  to  Dumas,  Dec.  19,  1775.     (See  Deane  to 

Committee,  Aug.  18,  1776.) 
French,  engaged  by  Congress.     Lovell  to    Washington,  July  24,  1777.      (See  Du- 
Portail.) 
England  (see  Britain) — 

Alienation  from.     Introduction,  §i  20. 
English  corruption  in  polities.     Ihid.,  ^  7. 

English  hostility  and  arrogance  to  the  United  States.    Ihid.,  $  $  27jf. 
English  liberalism.     Emigration  of,  to  the  United  States  before  its  deterioration 

under  Cromwell,  Charles  II,  and  James  II.     Ihid.,  ^  8. 
English  revolutions.     Parallelism  of,  with  American.     Ihid.,  $  8. 
English  statesmen  of  1688  — 

Double  dealing  of,  in  revolution  of  1680.     Ihid.,  ^  8. 
Differences  of  opinion  of,  as  to  American  Revolution.     Ihid.,  ^  27  jf. 
English  politics — 

Survey  of.     A.  Lee  to  Dumas,  Nov.  15,  1776. 
Effect  of,  on  peace.     La  Fayette  to  Livinf/ston,  June  25,  1782. 
EsTAiNG.     (See  WEstaing.) 

Executive  authority.     Growth  of.    Introduction,  ^  209. 
Etombe — 

Commissioned  as  French  consul-general  for  New  England.     Luzerne  to  Congress, 

Aug.  23,  Sept.  7,  1781. 
Appointed  French  consul  for  New  England.     Congress,  Mar.  16,  1784. 
Europe.     Sympathy  of,  with  America.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12,  1777; 

Franklin  to  Cooper,  May  1,  1777.     (See  Dumas  to  Franklin,  Apr.  30,  1776.) 
European  powers.    Ministers  at  Paris  instructed  to  make  interest  with,  Oct.  16, 1776. 
Everett,  E.— 

His  opinion  of  Adams.     Introduction,  ^  132. 
His  opinion  of  Morris.     Ihid.,  $  183. 
Exchange  of  prisoners — 

Couference.  with  Hartley  as  to,  June  16,  1778. 

Importance  of.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Nov.  5,  1781 ;  Livingston  to  Franklin,  Nov. 
9,  1782.     (See  Prisoners.) 
Expenses  of  minister.     What  are  to  be  regarded  as  such.     Adams  to  Franklin,  Oct. 
4,  1781  ;  Franklin  to  Adams,  June  11,  1783;  Adams  to  Gerry,  Sept.  7,1783. 
(See  Salaries.) 
Exports.     Impolicy  of  taxes  on.     Franklin  to  Lovell,  July  22,  1778. 

F. 

Fabianism.    Charge  of,  against  constructive  revolutionary  statesmen.     Introduction, 

$5. 
Fagan.     Certain  privileges  given  to.      Commissioners  to  Sartine,  Oct.  2,  1778. 
Fair  Play,  brigantine.     Franklin  to  Sartine,  June  27,  1780. 
Falkland — 

Precedent  for  American  compromisers.     Introduction,  $  8. 

Illustrating  the  position  of  intermediaries  in  civil  wars.     Ihid.,  ^  197. 
False  reports  of  British  campaigns,  sent  through  A.  Lee's  secretaries.    /  hid.,  $  152. 
Falsification  of  American  documents.     (See  Forgery.) 
"  Family  compact"  of  Lee  family.     Jay's  view  of>     Introduction,  ^  153. 
Farmers  General— 

Contract  of  Commissioners  with,  Jan.  17,  1777. 

Agreement  for  sale  of  tobacco  to.  Mar.  24,  1777. 

From  Morris,  Nov.  4,  178:). 

(See  Morris  to  Farmers  General,  sam<^  date.) 


TRELIMINARV^    INDEX.  89 

''Favorkd  Nation."    Me.iniiijr  of  tcTin.     Comm'»isionn's  to  Lloyd,  Jan.  20,  1779. 
Ferdinand  of  Brunswick,  suggested  as  generalissimo  for  America.     Introduction, 

9  77.     Deanc  to  CommiHee,  Dec.  (>,  1770. 
Ferson  (French  officer),  notice  of.     Introduction,  ^  78. 
Finances — 

Close  connection  of,  with  diplomacy.     Introduction,  ^  1,14. 
Burden  of  them  on  Franklin.     Ibid.,  ^'^  113,118. 
Improved  condition  of.     Gen-y  to  Adams,  May  5,  1780. 
Finance  Department— 

Organization  of.     Jction  of  Congress,  Feb.  7,  1781. 

Superintendent  of.     Election  of  Morris  as.     Morris  to  Congress,  Mar.  13,  1781. 
Proper  system  of.     Aforris  to  Committee,  Mar.  20,  1781. 
Sui>erlntendent.     Powers  of.     Action  of  Congress,  Aitr.  21,  1781. 
Finances  of  the  United  States  at  peace.     Disorder  of.     Livingston  to  FranlcUn, 

Jan.  0,  1783. 
Financial  difficulties  in  1781-'82  (see  Franklin— Morris). 

Financial  systems  of  England  and  France.    Adams  to  Congress,  Mar,  29,  1781. 
Fisri.     Arrival  of  five  vessels  of,  and  difficulties  encountered.     Deane  to  Committee, 

Aug.  18,  1770. 
Fisheries,  Newfoundland. 

Great  injury  would  be  done  and  recruits  for  Navy  obtained  by  an  expedition  to 

destroy.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  27,  1770 ;  Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1770. 
Izard's  views  requested  as  to.     Adams  to  Izard,  Sept.  20,  1778. 
Vergennes'  views  of,  in  1778.     Vergennes  to  Gerard,  Mar.  29,  1778. 
Izard's  views  as  to.     Izard  to  Adams,  Sept.  24,  1778;  Adams''  Ecj)ly  to  Izard,  Sept. 

25,  1778. 
Construction  of  treaty  of  1778  as  to.     Izard  to  Adams,  Sept.  28,  1778;  Adams  to 

Izard,  Oct.  2,  1778. 
Proceedings  of  Congress  as  to,   Feb.  23,  27,   Mar.   17,   19,  22,  24,  May  8,  12,  22, 
June  3,  19,  24,  July  1,  12,  17,  22,  24,  29,  31,  Aug.  3,  13,  Sept.  9,  11,  25,  28,  Oct. 
4,  9,  13,  1779. 
Position  to  be  taken  in  respect  to.     Livingston  to  FranJdin,  Jan.  7,  1782.     (See 
Adams^  journal  of  peace  negotiations.)    Strachey  to  British  Ministry,  Nov.  8,  1782. 
Jay  to  Livingston,  Nov.  17,  1782. 
Discussed  by  Commissioners.     A  dam  s^  journal,  Nov.  25,  1782. 
True  policy  of  France  is  to  admit  the  right  of  the  United  States  to.     Livingston  to 

Jay,  Dec.  30,  1782. 
Continued  importance  of  discussion  of.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Feb.  5,  1783. 
Franklin's  zeal  in  support  of.    Jay  to  Franklin,  Sept.  11,  1783 ;  Adams  to  Franklin, 
Sept.  13,  1783. 
Fisheries,  whale.      Projects  for  seizing.      Commissioners  to  Sartine,  Oct.  30,   1778 ; 

Commissioners  to  Congress,  Nov.  9,  1778. 
Fitzherbert.     Participation  of,  in  discussions  on  treaty  of  peace.     Adams^  journal, 

Nov.  26,  1782,  et  seq. 
FiTZ  Patrick,  General.     His  account  of  the  lawlessness  of  British  troops  in  America. 

Introduction,  $  22. 
Fleet — 

British.     Ill-success  of  in  1779.     Carmiohael  to  Committee,  Jan.  4,  1781. 
French.     Disposition  of.     Sartine  to  Vergennes,  Apr.  26,  1778. 
French.     Importance  of,  in  Atlantic.     Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  .Jan.  1,  1779. 
Spanish.     State  of.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Feb.  22,  1781. 
Fleury— 

Application  as  to  exchange  of.     Sartine  to  Commissioners,  Nov.  12,  1778, 
Medal  for  account  of.     Franklin  to  Congress,  May  31,  1780. 
Medal  for,  delivered.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9,  1780. 


90  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Fleuky — Continued. 

From  Morris,  Dec.  8,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Flenry,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  5,  178*2. 

(See  Morris  to  Flenry,  same  date.) 
Floka,  The.     FraulcUn  to   French   admiralti/,   May  10,  1789;    Franklin  to   Vergennes, 

June  18,  25, 1780. 
Flokence.     Izard's  course  as  minister  to.     Izard  to  Laurens,  Apr.  11,1778.     Introduc- 
tion, ^  178. 
Florida.     Spain  proposes  attack  on.     Miralles  io  Luzerne,  Nov.  25, 1779;  Luzerne  to 
Congress,  Nov.  26, 1779. 
(See  Huntington  to  Luzerne,  Dec.  1(5, 1779.) 
Obtained  by  Spain  by  treaty  of  peace.     La  Fayette  to  Livingston,  Feb.  5, 1783. 
Florida  Blanca — 

Notice  of.     Introduction,  ^  88. 

Correspondence  as  to  relations  of  Spain  with  the  United  States.     (See  Carmichael, 

Jay.) 
Views  of,  as  to  Sx^anish  mediation.     Introduction,  ^  98. 
From  A.  Lee,  Mar.  17,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Florida  Blanca,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  July  18,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Florida  Blanca,  same  date.) 
Froui  A.  Lee,  Dec.  17,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Florida  Blanca,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Dec.  27,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Florida  Blanca,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  June  27,  1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Florida  Blanca,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Dec.  16,  1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Florida  Blanca,  same  date.) 
To  Jay,  postponing  his  formal  reception,  Feb.  24,  1780. 
Conferences  with  Jay.     Jay  to  Congress,  Nov.  6,  1780. 

Correspondence  with  Jay  as  reported  by.     Jay  to  Livingston,  Apr.  28,  1782. 
To  Carmichael,  advising  of  sale  of  English  frigate  Lord  Howe,  brought  into  Cadiz 

as  prize,  Apr.  14,  1782. 
From  La  Fayette,  Feb.  19,  1783. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Florida  Blanca,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Feb.  22,  1783. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Florida  Blanca,  same  date.) 
To  Galfez.    As  to  Gardoqui's  mission  to.the  United  States,  Oct.  2,  1784. 
To  Carmichael.     Gardoqui's  mission  to  the  United  States,  Oct.  7,  1784. 
To  Congress.     Gardoqui's  mission  to  the  United  States,  Oct.  8,  1784. 
Folger,  Captain — 

Suspicious  conduct  of.     Committee,  to  Commissioners,  Jan.  12,  1778. 

Stealing  papers  of.     A  person  who  escaped  to  England  guilty  of.    Adams  to  Lovell, 

July  26,  1778. 
Criticism  on  loss  of  papers  papers  by.      A.  Lee  to  Committee,  A\}V,  14,  1778. 
Ford,  Hezekiah,  secretary,  to  A.  Lee — 
Disloyalty  of.     Introduction,  ^  150. 

Appointment  as  secretary  announced.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Sept.  9,  1778. 
His  treachery  reported      (iovcrnor  and  Legislature  of  Virginia  to  Congress,  Jan.  26, 
1779. 
Foreign  affairs — 

Incapacity  of  Congress  to  manage.    Madison  to  Jefferson,  Jnue  10, 1783.    Introduc- 
tion, ^209. 
Madison's  view  of,  in  1782.     Madison  \.o  Randolph,  May  14,  1782. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  91 

Foreign  affairs— Continued. 

Committee  of  Correspondence  for.     (See  Committee.) 

Gradual  decadence  of.     Introduction,  '^^  103,209.     Lovell  to  A.  Lee,  Juno  13,  Aug. 

6,  1779. 
Livingston,  R.  R.,  appointed  Secretary  of,  Aug.  10,  1781. 
Department.    Regulations  of.     Congress,  Feb.  22,  1782,^'. 
Department  of.     Organization  of.     Introduction,  ^  103. 
Foreign  aid — 

Neither  politic  nor  right  for  us  to  depend  on,  too  exclusively.     Franl-lin  to  Morris, 

Nov.  5,  1781. 
Contrast  of,  between  1688  and  1770.     See  Introduction,  ^\  H. 
Foreign  indebtedness  of  the  United  States  in  1784.     Pressure  of.     Morris  to  Con- 
gress, Mar.  17,  May  6,  1784. 
Foreign  letters  in  Revolution.     Difficulty  in  receiving  and  transmitting.     Intro- 
duction, §  105. 
Foreign  ministers — 

Action  of  Congress  as  to  distribution  of  funds  by,  Sept.  14,  1782. 
Mode  of  reception  of.     Action  of  Congress  as  to,  June,  12, 1783. 
Expenses  of.     Adams  to  Gerry,  Sept.  9,  1783.    (See  Expenses,  Salaries.) 
Foreign  missions.    Policy  of  Congress  as  to.     Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  Mar.  21, 1777.     (Sec 

Diplomacy.) 
Foreign  policy  of  Congress.     Vacillating  character  of.     Introduction,  $  101. 
Foreigners.    Rights  of,  to  be  secured.     Livingston  to  Governors  of  Stales,  Feb.  18,  1782. 
Forgery — 

Of  resolution  of  Congress.     Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  Bingham,  Apr.  20,  1778. 
Of  letters  of  Washington.     (See  note  to  Blarbois'  letter  of  Mar.  13,  1782.) 
Of  American  documents  by  British  authorities.     Introduction,  $  30. 
Persons  guilty  of.     Extradition  of,  asked.     Boudinot  to  Carleton,  Aug.  1,  1783 
Forth  — 

Sent  to  sound  the  French  ministry  as    to  peace.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Apr.  13, 

1782. 
A  British  spy.     Introduction,  §§  150,  207. 
Fothergill,  Dr. — 

Invitation  to  Franklin  to  confer  on  American  affairs.     Franklin^s  narrative  of  ne- 
gotiations at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Discussions  of  reconciliatory  measures  between  Franklin  and.     Franklin^s  narra- 
tive of  negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Fox,  C.  J.— 

To  Grenville.   As  to  peace  negotiations,  May  21,  31,  June  10,  1782. 
From  Grenville,  June  4,  1782. 

(See  Grenville  to  Fox,  same  date.) 
From  Grenville,  June  6,  1782. 

(See  Grenville  to  Fox,  same  date.) 
From  Grenville,  June  21,  1782. 

(See  Grenville  to  Fox,  same  date.) 
Correspondence  with,  on  peace  negotiations,     ^ee  Franklin^ s  journal,  undor  date 

of  July  1,  1782. 
Views  friendly  to  commercial  treaty.     Laurens  to  Livingston,  Anr,  5.  10,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     Introducing  Hartley,  Apr.  21,  1783. 

Desires  aooolute  independence  for  the  United  States.     Introduction,  'j^  31. 
Hoxds  it  only  necessary  to  ratify  the  provisional  articles  to  make  theui  ddiiii- 
tive;  says  that  the  exclusion  of  United  States  ships  from  the  West  India 
trade  was  intentional;  desires  a  United  States  minister  at  London.     Lnwrins 
to  ministers  at  Paris,  Aug.  9,  1783. 


92  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Fox,  C.  J.— Continued. 

From  FranMin  Sept.  5, 1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Fox,  same  date.) 
Fox  AND  North.   Coalition  ministry  of,  censured.    Adams  to  Livingston^  June  27, 1783  J 

Adams  to  Morris,  July  5,  1783. 

Policy  of  government  of.    Introduction,  §$  31,  32. 
France — 

Growth  of  American  affection  for.     lUd.,  ^  25,  33,  ff. 

Policy  of,  to  the  United  States.     lUd.,  ^  36,  j^". 

Proceedings  in  cabinet  of  Louis  XVI.     lUd.,  $$  39,  ff. 

Effect  of  battle  of  Saratoga,  on.     lUd.,  §  44. 

Treaties  with.     Ihid.,  ^  45. 

War  with  England  of.     Ihid  ^  49. 

Obligations  of  United  States  to,  under  treaty  of  alliance.     Ihid.,  $$  109,  ff. 

Stringency  of  instructions  to  commissioners.     Ihid.,  §§  109  j^. 

Differences  between  commissioners  as  to.     Ihid.,  §  110. 

Hostility  to  England  based  on  treaty  of  1763.     Ihid.,  $  34. 

Policy  of,  in  sustaining  America.     Ihid.,  §  36. 

Relations  with.     (See  Gerard,  Vergennes,  Luzerne.) 

Importance  of  obtaining  supplies  from.     Committee  to  Deane,  Mar.  3,  1776. 

Position  of  ministry  of.     Dumas  to  FranMin,  Apr.  30,  1776. 

Position  of,  as  to  England  and  the  Colonies.     Dumas  to  Committee, May  14,  1776. 

Attitude  to  the  United  States  in,  Aug.,  1776.     Deane  to  Committee,  Aug.  16,  1776. 

To  be  urged  to  furnish  supplies  and  money.     Committee  to  Deane,  Oct.  1,  1776. 

Will  not  war  with  England,  but  will  furnish  supplies.     Record  of  Committee,  Oct. 

1,  1776. 

The  natural  ally  of  the  Colonies.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  1776. 

Reported  demand  on,  by  England  for  surrender  of  American  vessels.     Committee 

to  Deane,  Oct.  1, 1776. 
Friendliness  of.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  2,  1776.  , 

Affairs  in.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  28,  1776. 
Financial  embarrassment  of.     Deane  to  Committee,  Dec.  1,  1776. 
luiportance  of  aid  from.     Morris  to  Commissioners,  Dec.  21,  1776 ;  Committee  to 

Commissioners,  Dec.  30,  1776. 
Commission  of  Franklin  as  commissioner  to,  Jan.  1,  1777. 
Appeal  to,  by  American  commissioners,  Jan.  5,  1777. 
Application  to,  from  Congress.     Morris  to  Commissioners,  Jan.  14,  1777. 
Loans  by,  to  the  United  States  in  1776-'77.     Commissioners  to   Congress  Jan.  17, 

1777.     (See  Beaumarchais,  Introduction,  <J  61.^.) 
Friendly  temper  of,  to  the  United  States.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Jan.  17, 

1777. 
Difficulties  as  to  position  of     Carmichael  to  Dumas,  Jan.  21, 1777. 
Importance  of  aid  in  spring  of  1777.     Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  1,  1777. 
Supplies  from,  not  received  on  Feb.  2,  1777.     Harrison  et  al.  to  Commissioners,  Feb. 

2,  1777. 

Officers  from,  volunteering  service.     Commissioners    to   Committee,  Feb.  6,  1777. 

Introduction,  ^  78. 
Position  assumed  as  to  neutrality  in  1777.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12, 

1777. 
Officers  from.     Claims  of,  before  Congress.     Lovell  to  Washington,  July  24,  1777. 
Action  of,  as  to  American  privateers.     Vergennes  to  Gerard,  Aug.  21,  1777;  Deane 

to  Morris,  Aug.  23,  1777. 
Gives  covert  assistance.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Sept.  8,  1777. 
Proposes  to  Spain  an  alliance  against  England.     Louis  XVI  to  Charles  III,  Jan. 

8,  1778. 


PKELIMINARY    INDEX.  93 

FllANCK — C()Il(ilUlC«l. 

Fidelity  to,  pledged  by  Coiigii^Hs,  Juii.  M,  1771). 

Stores  from,  for  the  United  States.  Forwardiug  of.  Franklin  to  Cnshiny,  Feb.  21, 
1778.     {Seti  SitpplitH.) 

Friendly  treiitnieut  of  Auierleans.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb.  2y,  1778. 

Minister  from,  to  the  United  States.  Appointment  of  Gerard  as.  Louis  XVI  to 
Connress,  Mar.  28,  1778. 

Attitude  of,  in  1778  as  to  America's  contested  claims.  Vergennes  to  Gerard,  Mar. 
29,  1778. 

Allej>ed  commercial  discrimination  against,  denied.  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  July 
(3,  1778. 

Minister  of.     Ceremonial  of  rcjoption  of,  in  Congress,  Inly  20,  1878. 

In  ;i  state  of  war  with  Britain,  though  war  not  declared.  Commissioners  to  Con- 
gress, July  23,  1778. 

Congress  will  not  treat  separately  from.    Resolution,  Jan.  14,  1771). 

Alliance  with.     Vindication  of,  by  Franklin.      Franklin  to  Hartley,  Feb.  3, 177l>. 

Difficulty  in  obtaining  loans  fn)ui.     Franklin  to  Committee,  May  2(5,  1771). 

Provisions  for.     Statement  as  to.     Gerard  to  Congress,  July  5,  1779. 

Alliance  with.    Binding  effect  of.     Gerard,  eonference  with  Congress,  July  10,  1779. 

Treaty  should  not  have  been  published  without  consent  of.     Ibid. 

Action  of,  as  to  x^risoners.     Ibid. 

Forces  of.  Difficulty  in  supplying.  Smith  to  Ilolker,  Jan.  7,  1780;  llolker  to 
Lnzcrne,  Jan.  10, 1780, 

Difficult  position  of,  as  to  America.     Adams  to  S.  Adams,  Mar.  4,  1780. 
Importance  of  alliance  with.     Franklin  to  Cooper,  Mar.  1(5,  1780;  Adams  to  Ver- 
gennes, May  9,  1780;    Vergennes  to  Adams,  May  10,  1780. 
Co-operation  in  campaign  with.     Congress,  June  5,  1780. 
Fidelity  to,  in  the  United  States.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  July  10, 1780. 
Difference  of  attitude  to,  between  Franklin  and  Adams;  Vergennes  declines  lo 

correspond    with   Adams.      Vergennes  to  Adams,  July  25,  1780;    Vergennes  to 

Franklin,  July  31,  1780  ;  Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9, 1780. 
Congress  disap])roves  of  Adams'  course  as  to.     Hnntington  to  Adams,  Jan.K),  1781 

(given  in  note  of  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  July  31, 1780). 
Answer  to  the  neutrality  declaration  of  Sweden.     Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  22, 1780. 
Does  not  favor  mediation.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  29, 1781. 
King  of.     Answer  to  mediatory  courts.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Mar.  12,  1781. 
Financial  systems  compared  with  that  of  England.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar. 

29, 1781. 
Squadron  from,  in  the  American  watersdn  Mar.,  1781.     (Destouches  to  Lvzerne, 

Mar.  19,  1781  ;     Washington  to  Luzerne,  Mar.    31,    1781  ;    Lovell  to  Franklin, 

Mar.  31,  1781. 
Influence  of,  asked  by  Dana  in  his  mission  to  Russia.     Dana  to   Vergennes,  Mar. 

31,  1781. 
Convention  with  Holland  of  1781  as   to  recaptures.     Adams  to    Congress,  May 

25,  1781. 
Peculiar  duties  to  Holland.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  June  18,  1781. 
Finances  of,  prevent  her  from  affording  large  continuous  aid.    Franklin  to  Morris, 

Nov.  5,  1781. 
Friendliness  of,  but  danger  of  overburdening.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Nov.  5,  1781. 
Answer  to  mediatory  courts  communicated  by.  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Nov. 21, 1781. 
Fresh  supplies  promised  by.     Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Nov.  23,  1781. 
Attitude  of,  to  United  States  as  to  fisheries  and  differences  with  Spain.     Marbois 

to  Vergennes,  Mar.  13,  1782. 
Conference  with  minister  of,  as  to  alliance.     Congress,  May  1,  1782, 
Alliance  with.    Vote  of  Congress  on  fidelity  to,  May  31,  1782. 


94  PKELIMINARY    INDEX. 

France— Continued. 

Action  of  Congress  on  instructions  to  minister,  to  co-operate  with,  Aug.  8,  1782. 

Congress  pledges  fidelity  to,  Oct.  4,  1782. 

Suspected  of  attempting,  by  treaty  with  Russia,  to  give  preference  to  Russian 
products.     Dana  to  Adams,  Oct.  14,  1782. 

Fidelity  of  engagements  to,  and  of  refusing  separate  peace.  Proceedings  of  Con- 
grefjs,  Jan.  .3,  Mar.  12,  1783. 

Loans  to  the  United  States  to  date.     Livingston  to  Greene,  Jan.  4,  1783. 

No  ground  for  suspicions  of,  in  peace  negotiations.  Livingston  to  Jay,  Jan.  4,1783 ; 
Livingston  to  Franklin,  Jan.  6,  1783. 

Friendliness  to  the  United  States.     La  Fayette  to  Carmichael,  Jan.  20,  1783. 

Gives  loan  for  six  millions,  though  in  great  pecuniary  difficulties.  Franklin  to  Mor. 
ris,  Mar.  7,  1783. 

Army  of.     Recognition  of  services  of,  by  Congress,  May  1,  1783. 

Proposed  new  articles  of  treaty  of  commerce  with.  Vei'gennes  to  Franklin,  May  20, 
1783. 

Friendly  relations  with.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Sept.  13,  1783. 

Affection  for,  not  diminished  in  the  United  States.  Morris  to  Franklin,  Sept.  30, 
1783. 

Commerce  of.     Papers  as  to.     Morris  to  Congress,  A])r.  16,  1784. 

Indebtedness  to.  Call  for  settlement  of.  Luzerne  to  Congress,  Apr.  9,  1784.  Mor- 
ris to  Marhois,  Aug.  17,  1784. 

No  other  nations  to  have  superior  advantages.     Vergennes  to  Franklin,  Aug.  27, 
1784;  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Sept.  3,  1784. 
Fkaxcy — 

Brings  cargo  of  goods  and  is  recommended  to  Congress.  Deane  to  Committee,  Sept. 
10,  1777. 

Position  of.     Introduction,  $  73. 

His  arrival  as  Beaumarchais'  agent.     Lovcll  to  Commissioners,  Mar.  24,  1778. 

Contract  of  Congress  with,  discussed.     Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  Sept.  10, 1778. 

Negotiation  of,  with  Congress.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Jan.  4,  1779. 
FliANKLlX,  B. — 

His  position  in  revolutionary  politics.     Introduction,  $  4. 

His  appointment  as  minister  to  France;  age  and  infirmities.     Ibid.,  $  112. 

Probity  and  courage.     Ihid.,^^  8,  113. 

His  political  knowledge.     Ibid.,  ^  115. 

A  liberal  constructive.     Ibid.,  §  116. 

H's  alleged  failure  to  appeal  to  high  motives.     Ibid.,  9  117. 

His  innneuse  labors.     Ibid.,  ^  118. 

Neither  indolent  nor  dissipated.     Ibid.,  ^  119. 

His  success  as  a  diplomatist.     Ibid.,  ^  120. 

High  reputation.     Ibid.,  §  \2l. 

Intinence  in  France.     Ibid.,  §  122. 

Courted  and  feared  in  England.     Ibid.,  ^123. 

His  sympathies  as  between  France  and  England.     Ibid.,  ^  124. 

His  relations  to  Chaumont  and  Passy.     Ibid.,  $  125. 

His  relations  to  his  colleagues.     Ibid.,  $§  126, 145, 149. 

His  relations  to  his  family.     Ibid.,  §»  127. 

His  course  after  returning.     Ibid.,  §  128. 

Style  of  his  papers.     Ibid.,  ^  114. 

Washington's  opinion  of.     Ibid.,  $  113. 

Multitudinous  duties.     Ibid.,^^  107,  118. 

To  Thomson.  Presentation  of  petition  to  King;  waiting  with  it  on  Lord  Dart- 
mouth; iudiflFerence  with  which  it  was  received;  confidence  of  British  raia- 
istry ;  Lord  Chatham's  position,  Feb.  5, 1775. 


PKELIMINAKY    INDEX.  95 

Franklin,  B. — Coiitimicd. 

Narrative  of  iiiforinal  iui<;otiations  in  Loudon  in  1775,  giviu<^  a  full  account  of  bia 

interview   with  i)arties  reprcsoutinj^    indirectly    the  Governiuent  and   with 

other  public  eharaciters,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
To  I'ricHtlen.     Perfuly  of  Gage ;  barbarity  of  Jiritish  warfare;  lesson  of  Bunker 

Hill;  his  occupation  in  Philadelphia;  determination  of  the  Colonies  not  to 

subuiit,  July  7, 177."). 
To  a  iVioiid  in  Enghind  {Hartley).     The  Colonies  can  not  be  beateu  into  subiuis- 

sion,  Oct. :},  1775. 
To  Priestht/.     Bunker  llill  shows  the  folly  of  British  conquest  of  the  Colonies, 

Oct.  :i,  1775. 
Chosen  nieniber  of  Coniniittee  of  Correspondence.     Secret  Journals  of  Congress, 

Nov.  29,  1775. 
(With  Dickinson  and  Jay)  to  A.  Lee.     Invites  him  to  correspond  as  to  disposition 

of  foreii:,u  powers;  recommends  Dumas  and  Story;  transmits  him  £200,  Dec. 

12,  1775. 
To  Dnmas.     Commends  his  publications  ;  vi(!ws  as  to  coming  campaign  ;  desires 

information  as  to   European    affairs;  suggests  correspondence  with  A.  Lee, 

Doc.  12,  1775. 
To  Charles  Lee.    Introducing  Arundel ;  deficiency  as  to  powder;  utility  of  pikes 

and  bows  and  arrows;  suspense  as  to  negotiations,  Feb.  11,  1776. 
A.  Lee  oljjects  to  his  being  on  the  Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence  ;  Lee  to 

Colden,  Feb.  13,  14,  1776. 
Et  al.  to  Deane.     Advised  to  visit,  on  reaching  Paris,  Lo  Roy  and  Dubourg,  and  to 

make  application  to  Vergennesfor  aid,  and  to  urge  the  necessity  of  supplies; 

advised  to  seud  for  Bancroft,  and  to  pay  his  expenses,  and  to  correspond  with 

A.  Lee,  Mar.  3,  1776. 
From  Dnmas,  Apr.  30,  1776. 

(See  Dumas  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Dumas.    Introducing  Deane,  Mar.  23,  1776. 
To  Commissioners  in  Canada.     His  feeble  health  ;  incidents  in  his  journey,  May 

27,  1776. 
From  Howe,  June  20,  1776. 

(See  Howe  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Howe.     Submission  impossible  on  British  terms,  July  20,  1776. 
From  Howe,  Aug.  16,  1776. 

(See  Howe  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  (rates.     Inducements  to  Hessians  to  desert;  union  in  Congress,  Aug.  28,  1776. 
To  Howe.    Will  meet  him  in  conference  w^ith  Rutledge,  Sept.  8,  1776. 
In  conference  (together  with  Rutledge  and  Adams)  with  Howe;  details  of,  Sept. 

11,  1776. 
And  Morris.     Memorandum  of,  giving  report  of  A.  Lee's  conferences  with  Beau- 

marchais,  in  which  Beauraarchais  stated  that  France  would  send  to  the  assist- 
ance of  the  United  States  £200,000  worth  of  arms,  which  intelligence  it  waa 

voted  to  keep  secret,  Oct.  1,  1776. 
To  Dumas.     Americans  firm  at  Philadelphia  against  a  great  force  of  English,  Oct. 

1,  1776. 
Appointed,  with  .Jefferson  and  Deane,  to  make  a  treaty  with  France.     Committee 

to  Deane,  Oct.  2,  1776. 
To  Ministers  at  Paris.     Instructions  from  Congress,  Oct.  16,  1776. 
To  A.  Zee.     Announcing  his  appointment  as  commissioner  at  Paris,  Oct.  23,  1776. 
Appointed  unanimously  commissioner  to  Paris.     Committee  to  Deane,  Oct.  24, 1776. 
To  Deane.     Announcing  his  arrival  and  his  purpose  to  remain  incor/nito;  capture 

of  prizes  on  way,  Dec.  4, 1776. 
To  Committee.     Announces  his  arrival  at  Nantes  after  a  rough  voyage,  the  captain 

(Wickes)  having  taken  two  prizes,  Dec.  8, 1776., 


96  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Franklin,  B. — Continued. 

To  Hancoclc.  Question  as  to  sale  of  prizes  ;  will  not  at  first  appear  in  public  ca^ 
pacity ;  good  prospect  of  military  supplies,  Dec.  8, 1770. 

Arrival  of,  in  France.  Deane  to  Ver<jcnnes,  Dec.  8, 1776;  Deane  to  Committee,T)&Q. 
12, 177() ;  Deane  to  Dumas,  Dec.  13, 1770. 

To  Vergennes.     Auuounciug  his  powers,  Dec.  23, 1770. 

From  Committee,  Jan.  1, 1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Frankl i n ,  samo  date.) 

Appointment  as  commissioner  to  France,  Jan.  1, 1777. 

(With  Deane  and  Lee)  to  Vergennes.  Application  for  eight  ships  of  the  line; 
pledges  of  fidelity  by  the  United  States;  necessity  of  uaval  aid,  Jau.  5, 1777. 

To  Gerard.     Recognition  of  French  promises  of  assistance,  Jan.  14, 1777. 

(With  Deane,  and  Lee.)     From  li.  Morris,  Jau.  14,  1777. 
(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  et  al.,  same  date.) 

(With  Deane,  and  Lee)  to  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs.  Commissiouers  met  on  Dec. 
22,  and  had  an  audience  on  Dec.  28  with  French  secretary  for  foreign  affairs; 
statement  to  latter  of  needs  of  Congress;  forwarding  of  supplies;  objections 
to  Myrtle  and  Thomas  Morris  as  business  agents;  caution  as  to  Peuet ;  ask 
for  blank  commissions  for  privateers  ;  British  efforts  at  German  enlistments; 
French  sympathy  and  prospects  of  war  with  England;  to  meet  consignments 
Congress  should  forward  tobacco  ;  offer  of  loan  from  France ;  proposed  build- 
ing of  ships,  Jan.  17,  1777. 

To  Congress.     Recommends  Captain  Balm,  Jan.  20,  1777. 

To  Nieltolson.     Direction  as  to  proposed  cruise,  Jan.  2G,  1777. 

(With  Deane,  and  Lee)  to  Vergennes.  Importance  of  decisive,  friendly  action  by 
France,  Feb.  1,  1777.     Introduction,  $  94. 

(With  Deane,  and  Lee)  pledge  of  fidelity  by,  Feb.  2,  1777. 

(With  Deane,  and  Lee)  to  Committee.  Friendliness  of  France,  but  doubts  of  Ameri- 
can success;  proposed  purchase  of  cutters  ;  British  plans  of  campaign  ;  engi- 
neers and  other  officers  propose  to  go  to  America;  approval  iu  France  of 
Washington's  plan  of  campaign ;  efficiency  of  American  privateers  ;  Lee  pro- 
poses to  go  at  once  to  Spain,  Feb.  0,  1777. 

(With  Deane)  to  President  of  Congress.  Introducing  Coudray,  and  communicating 
agreement  with  certain  French  officers,  Feb.  0,  1777. 

(With  Deane,  and  Lee)  to  Cermaine.  Demanding  restitution  of  American  vessels 
betrayed  into  British  jiorts,  Feb.  7,  1777. 

(With  Deawe)  to  Committee.  Wantof  information  from  America;  stores  herewith 
forwarded;  importance  of  Williams'  services.  Mar.  4,  1777. 

(With  Deane)  to  Committee.  Continued  failure  of  letters;  France  desires  to  observe 
terms  with  England,  but  will  open  her  ports  to  our  ships  and  sell  us  what  wo 
want ;  munitions  of  war  furnished,  though  the  minister  affects  to  know  noth- 
ing about  it;  ships  refused ;  plans  for  a  loan;  preparations  for  building  two 
ships  of  war ;  efforts  made  for  further  loans ;  Lee  has  gone  to  Spain,  with  good 
prospects  of  success;  hopefulness  as  to  future  loans;  pressure  of  French  offi- 
cers for  appointments;  contract  for  sale  of  tobacco  ;  heavy  j^urchaseof  arms; 
approves  ministers  being  sent  to  European  states ;  European  sympathy ;  naval 
preparations  of  France,  Mar.  12,  1777. 

To  A.  Lee.     Objects  to  initiating  foreign  missions.  Mar.  21,  1777. 

(With  Deane.)    Agreement  for  sale  of  tobacco  to  Farmer  General,  Mar.  24,  1777. 

Agreement  for  packets  with  Chaumont,  Apr.  — ,  1777. 

To  Lith.     As  to  the  latter  going  to  America,  Apr.  6,  1777. 

To  Aranda.     As  to  alliance  with  Spain,  Apr.  7,  1777. 

(With  Deane,  and  Lee)  to  Scliulen'berg.  As  to  negotiations  with  Prussia,  Apr.  19, 
1777, 

To  Fonte  de  Limes.  Protesting  against  injurious  proclaiuatiou  of  Portugal,  Apr.. 
26,  1777. 

To  Portuguese  Minister.    To  same  effect,  Apr.  20,  1777. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  97 

Fkanklix,  B.— Continued. 

To  Winthrop.  As  to  barbarity  of  employment  of  German  stipendiaiies,  May  1, 
1777. 

To  Cooper.     European  sympatliy  with  the  United  States,  May  1,  1777. 

To  CushuKj,     Progress  of  the  war,  May  1,  1777. 

(With  Deane  and  JjCc)  to  Williams.  Giving  him  charge  at  Nantes  of  packets  to 
and  from  America,  May  1,  1777. 

(With  Deane  and  Lee.)     From  A.  Lee,  May  IS,  1777. 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

(With  Deane)  to  Committee.  Lee's  proposed  visit  to  Berlin,  the  object  being  to 
obtain  an  open  i)ort.  Difficulties  from  restriction  of  prizes  ;  largo  remit- 
tances from  France ;  arrangements  for  campaign  as  to  cannon  and  accouter- 
ments;  necessity  of  punctual  payment  of  interest;  treaty  of  commerce  in 
course  of  preparation  ;  proposed  visit  and  commendation  of  La  Fayette,  May 
25,  1777. 

(With  Deane)  to  Committee.  Efficiency  of  American  privateers  in  injuring  British 
resources  ;  importance  of  continental  cruisers  on  the  German  Ocean  ;  Avestern 
coast  of  Scotland  now  unguarded ;  frigates  loaded  with  tobacco  might  be 
sent  to  France  and  refitted  and  then  sent  to  attack  British  ports;  foundries 
for  cannon  should  be  erected  iu  the  United  States;  can  not  now  obtain  ves- 
sels of  war  in  Europe,  May  26,  1777. 

(With  Deane)  to  Jay.  Importance  of  sending  tobacco,  rice,  etc.,  to  France;  mis- 
chief privateers  could  do  on  French  coast,  June  2,  1777, 

(With  Deane)  to  Vergennes.  As  to  invasions  of  neutrality  by  American  priva- 
teers, July  17,  1777. 

(With  Deane.)     Contract  with  Holker  for  arms,  Aug.  6,  1777. 

(With  Deane  and  Lee)  to  Vergennes.    As  to  arrest  of  Hodge,  Aug.  12,  1777. 

From  Dubourg,  Sept.  8,  1777. 
(See  Duhourg  to  Franldin,  same  date.) 

(With  Deane  and  Lee)  to  Committee.  Friendly  course  of  France,  though  technically 
maintaining  her  neutral  attitude  and  treaty  obligations  to  Britain  ;  difficulty 
of  maintaining  this  ]30sition  ;  probabilities  of  war  ;  military  suppies  will  be 
furnished,  but  no  American  remittances  are  received ;  effect  of  American 
privateers  on  British  commerce;  expenses  of  commissioners,  Sept.  H,  1777. 

Same  to  same.  France  pursues  the  same  line  ;  promises  of  French  additional  sup- 
port ;  failure  of  American  remittances ;  misconduct  of  Cerouio,  an  alleged 
agent  of  Congress ;  release  of  Hodge;  no  present  probability  of  obtaining 
money  on  private  loan,  Oct.  7,  1777. 

To  Hartlexj.     Urging  better  treatment  of  prisoners  iu  England,  Oct.  14,  1777. 

To  Lovell.     As  to  foreign  officers,  Oct.  17,  1777. 

(With  Deane  and  Lee)  to  Captains  of  American  vessels.  As  to  abuse  of  belligerent 
rights,  Nov.  21,  1777. 

(With  Deane  and  Lee)  to  Thompson  and  Hinman.  Directions  as  to  cruise  as  pri- 
vateers, Nov.  25,  1777. 
With  Deane  and  Lee)  t(»  Committee.  Frigate  built  by  their  order  sold  to  the  King; 
small  fleet  of  vessels  fitting  up  at  Nantes ;  in  this  way  supplies  will  be  sent  to 
America;  this  is  done  not  through  remittances,  but  the  bounty  of  friends; 
money  has  been  obtained  in  France  to  pay  interest  on  loans;  loss  of  packets 
carrying  dispatches;  loss  of  Captain  Wickes;  arrival  of  the  Amphitrite  with 
cargo  of  provisions  and  stores;  alleged  breach  of  neutrality  by  American 
privateers;  complaints  iu  this  respect  of  Spain;  difficulties  from  i)resent  in- 
ability to  sell  prizes  in  port;  blustering  character  of  George  Ill's  speech; 
French  caution  as  to  breach  of  neutrality  ;  war  still  supported  by  Parliament ; 
Montgomery's  monument  finished;  ship3 -Ra/e«5r/i  nnH  Alfred  finished,  Nov.  30, 
1777. 
7  WH 


98  PR11.LIMINARY    INDEX. 

Franklin,  13.— Coutinned. 

To  Cooper.     As  to  prisoners,  Dec.  11,  1777. 

(With  Deane  and  Lee)  to  Lord  North.     Protesting  against  cruelty  of  British  war- 
fare, Dec.  1-2,  1777. 
(With  Deane  and  Lee)  to  Commitlec.    Reception  of  news  of  Burgoyne's  defeat; 
France  determined  to  acknowledge  American  independence  and  agree  to  a 
liberal  treaty  on  condition  that  we  would  not  return  to  British  obedience ; 
further  promises  of  aid;  Congress  asked  to  be  sparing  in  drafts;  cargo  of 
Amphitrite  claimed  by  Beaumarchais ;  probabilityof  war  between  France  and 
Britain ;  inhuman  treatment  of  prisoners  ;  expenses  of  relief  to  prisoners,  Dec. 
18,  1777. 
To  Congress.     As  to  Deane's  aj-pointraent  of  officers,  Dec.  21,  1777. 
(With  Deane  and  Xee)  to  Vergennes.     Importance  of  treaty;  supply  of  three  mill- 
ions from  France  acknowledged,  Dec.  23,  1777. 
(With  Deane)  to  Paul  Jones,     Instructions  as  to  his  proposed  cruise  Jan.  IG,  1778. 
From  Price,  Jan.  18,  1778. 

(See  Price  to  FranJdin,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Jan.  28,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Isard,  Jan.  30,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Franldin,  same  date.) 
(With  Deane)  from  A.  Lee,  Jan.  30,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin  and  Deane,  same  date.) 
(With  Deane  and  Lee)  to  Gerard.     Asking  to  withdraw  twelfth  article  of  treaty 

Feb.  1,  1778. 
From  Gerard.     Declining,  Feb.  1,  1778. 
(With  Deane)  to  Lee.     Stating  last  letter,  Feb.  1,  1778. 

(With  Deane)  to  President  of  Congress.     Treaties  with  France  completed;  the  first 
of  amity  and  commerce;    the  other  of  alliance,  making  common  cause  with 
France  in  case  of  war  between  France  and  England ;  friendliness  of  France; 
Spain  to  be  allowed  to  come  in  under  treaty,  Feb.  8,  1778. 
To  HartJeg.     Friendly  letters,  Feb.  12,  26,  1778. 

(With  Deane  and  Lei)  to  Committee.     Transmitting  treaties;  Spain  expected  soon 
to  accede;  have  received  3,000,000  livres;  paid  W.  Lee  and  Izard  2,000  guineas 
each  for  expenses  of  journey  to  Germany  and  Italy;  remittances  asked  for; 
surrender  by  France  of  prizes  to  Britain  ;  cargo  of  Amphiiritc  ^iven  to  Beau- 
marchais; British  alarm  at  condition  of  war,  Feb.  16,  1778. 
To  Gerard.     Inclosing  papers  showing  fidelity  to  alliance,  Feb.  24,  1778. 
To  A .  Lee.     Referring  to  note  from  Hartley  as  to  British  conciliation,  Feb.  25, 1778. 
To  Gerard.     Inclosing  papers,  Feb.  25,  1778. 
(With  Deane)  from  A.  Lee,  Feb.  26,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin  and  Deane,  same  date.) 
(With  Deane)  to  A.  Lee.     Defending  themselves  from  charge  of  keeping  informa- 
tion from  him,  Feb.  27, 1778. 
(With  Deane  and  Lee)  to  Committee.     Movements  in  British  Parliament;  French 
alliance  settled;  Americans  well  treated  in  Paris  ;  have  ol>tained  repayment 
of  losses  by  seizure  of  prizes ;  steadfastness  of  French  alliance ;  death  of 
Thomas  Morris,  Feb.  28, 1778. 
To  Rariley.     Explaining  his  course  on  the  stamp  act.  Mar.  12, 1778. 
To  A.  Lee.     Explanation  as  to  packets  for  America,  Mar.  17. 1778. 
To  Hartley.     Friendly  sentiments,  Mar.  24, 1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  Mar.  27, 1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Mar.  29, 1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 


J 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  99 

Fr\xklin,  B. — Continned. 

From  Paltcneif,  Mar.  29, 1778, 

(See  Pnltency  to  Franklin,  sainc,  date.) 
To  Pultenci/.     Saying  indepeiulenco  is  ii  saic  qua  non,  Mar.  30,  1778. 
From  Izard.     Deiiiaiidiug  explanations,  Mar.  29,  1778. 
To  Izard.     In  reply,  Mar.  30,  1778. 

To  Congress.     Speaking  kindly  of  Deano,  Mar.  31,  1778. 
From  Izard,  Mar.  31,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  FranJclin,  same  date.) 
And  Deaiie  from  A.  Lee,  Mar.  31,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin  and  Deane,  same  date.) 
To  Laurens.     Introducing  Gerard,  Mar.  31,  1778. 

To  A.  Lee.     Vindicating  himself  from  charge  of  negligence,  Apr.  1,  1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  Apr.  2,  1778. 

(Sec  A.  Lee  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Apr.  4,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Ijte.     Has  his  accounts  always  ready;  further  explanation   of  his  course; 

his  vindication  as  to  accounts;    explains  his  non-answering  Lee's  letters, 

Apr.  4,  1778. 
To  A  Lee.     As  to  accounts,  Apr.  6,  1778. 

(With  Lee)  to  Dumas.     Arrival  of  Adams,  who  succeeds  Deane  ;  capture  of  an  En- 
glish ship  as  prize;  doubts  as  to  sending  minister  to  Holland ;  i)rospects  of 

campaign,  Apr.  10,  1778. 
To  Grand  Pensionary.     Announcing  independence  and  treaty  with  France,  Apr. 

10,  1778. 
(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Ross.     As  to  accounts,  Apr.  13,  1778. 
From  Hartley.     Advising  him  of  his  danger,  Apr.  23,  1778. 
To  Hartley.     Saying  he  is  not  in  this  way  to  be  moved,  Apr.  23,  1778. 
To  Vercjennes.    Explaining  Hartley's  mission,  Apr.  24,  1778. 
From  Izard,  Apr.  25,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes.     In  reply,  Apr.  25,  1778. 
(Sec  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Eoss.     In  respect  to  papers  of  T.  Morris,  Apr.  26,  1778. 
(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sarthie.     As  to  exchange  of  prisoners.  May  14,  1778. 
To  Vergennes.     Declaring  tho  frigate  Boston  to  be  a  United  States  shij)  of  war,  May 

16,  1778. 
To  Sartine.     Offering  to  give  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  to  Basmarine  &  Co., 

May  16,  1778. 
(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Governors,  etc.     As  to  expected.  British  campaign,  May 

18,  1778. 
(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.     As  to  forwarding  papers,  etc.,  May  19,  1778. 
To  Jonathan  W'dlianis.     Revoking  all  authority  to  him  and  vesting  it  in  Schweig- 

hauser,  as  sole  agent  at  Nantes,  May  25,  1778. 
To  Paul  Jones.     As  to  exchange  of  prisoners  and  accounts,  May  25,  1778. 
To  Hartley.     As  to  treatment  of  prisoners,  Maj'  25,  1778. 
To  Paul  Jones.     Giving  advices.  May  27,  June  6,  10,  16,  1778. 
(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.     As  to  relief  from  duty  from  American  ships, 

June  3,  1778. 
(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Simpson.     As  to  charges  against  him,  June  8,  1778. 
(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Jones.     Advising  him  further  as  to  his  course,  June  16, 

1778. 
To  Hartley.     As  to  exchange  of  prisoners,  June  16,  1778. 


100  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Franklin,  B. — Continued. 

From  Izard.     Bitterly  criticising  liim,  June  17,  28,  1778. 
(See  Izard  to  Franklin,  same  dates.) 

To  Commanders  of  Vessels.     As  to  Moravian  missionaries,  June  22,  1778. 

To  Untton.     As  to  monument  to  Montgomery,  June  23,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Jones.     As  to  cases  of  Simpson  and  Fallen,  June  31,  1778. 

To  JVcisseUstein.     As  to  political  conditions,  July  1,  1778.     (See  Weissenstein.) 

To  Grand.     As  to  British  seizure  of  goods  on  high  seas,  July  3,  1778. 

To  Fergennes.  As  to  alleged  commercial  discrimination  against  France,  July 
6,  1778. 

To  Hartley.     As  to  prisoners,  July  13,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.  As  to  relief  for  St.  Pierre  and  Miquelon;  ex» 
change  of  prisoners,  July  16,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Council  of  Massachusetts  Bay.  Asking  for  aid  to  islands 
of  St.  Pierre  and  Miquelon,  July  16,  1778. 

To  Vergennes.     As  to  action  of  Congress  on  the  treaties,  July  17,  1778. 

To  President  of  Congress.  Exchange  of  ratiiications  of  treaties  ;  war  not  yet  de- 
clared between  France  and  England,  hut  hostilities  at  sea  have  begun;  war 
probable  between  the  Emperor  and  Prussia;  France  agrees  to  abandonment 
of  eleventh  and  twelfth  articles  of  treaty  ;  Dumas  entitled  to  salary  of  £200 
at  least;  *'  Bonfield  at  Bordeaux  and  Schweighiiuser  at  Nantes,  both  by  the 
appointment  of  Mr.  W.  Lee,  are  the  only  persons  authorized  as  commercial 
agents:  "  consuls  should  be  American  citizens,  July  20,  30,  1778. 

To  Lovell.  Giving  views  as  to  appointment  of  officers,  and  as  to  treaties  with 
France,  and  as  to  expenses  of  legation  in  France,  July  22,  1778. 

(With  Adams)  to  Congress.  Announcing  war  between  France  and  England,  and 
hence  that  the  eventual  treaty  comes  in  force,  July  23,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Congress.  Commendatory  of  Lieutenant  Livingston, 
July  29,  1778. 

To  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs.  Encouraging  prospects;  ratifications  of  treaty 
agreed  on,  July  29,  1778. 

(With  Lee  Skud  Adams)  to  Sartine.  As  to  admiralty  jurisdiction ;  duties  on  prize 
goods,  Aug.  13, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.     As  to  prize  regulations,  Aug.  18, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Jones.  As  to  court-martial  on  Lieutenant  Simpson,  Aug. 
22,  1778. 

To  Vergennes.     As  to  Genoese  loan,  Aug.  25, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.  Necessity  of  subsidy  ;  asks  for  permission  to 
borrow  a)oney  in  France ;  transit  over  France  for  Americans  without  paying 
duties  asked  for,  Aug.  28, 1778. 

To  Hartley.  As  to  exchange  of  prisoners  and  as  to  loss  of  affection  for  England, 
Sept.  3,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adayns)  to  Beaumarchais.    As  to  accounts;   question  as  to  title  of 
the  Therese,  Sept.  10, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.  As  to  settlement  of  Beaumarchais'  claim, 
Sept.  10,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.  Application  on  behalf  of  McNeil,  to  enable 
him  to  discharge  his  cargo,  Sept.  10, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.  Reciting  that  Congress  had  committed  to 
commissioners  the  settlement  of  the  Hortalez  claim;  asks  advice  as  to  who 
form  the  firm  of  Hortalez  &  Co. ;  state  inability  to  discover  what  was  the 
contract  on  which  the  firm  rested ;  the  United  States  will  discharge  all  their 
liabilities  ;  question  as  to  ratifying  contract  with  Fraucy,  Sept.  10,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Paul  Jones.  As  to  prisoners  and  American  policy,  Sept. 
14,1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Hartley.    As  to  exchange  of  prisoners,  Sept.  14, 1778. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  101 

Franklin,  B. — Contiimed. 

Elected  by  Con}»i'e38  tninistei-  to  France,  Sept.  14,  1778. 

(With  Lee  (Did  Adams)  to  Sartinc.  Iinportance  of  reciprocity  as  to  privileges  of 
armed  cruisers;  question  as  to  tbo  Isabella,  retaken  by  privateer  General 
Mifflin;  bow  far  a  commission  is  essential  to  establish  right  to  cruise  as  pri- 
vateers; want  of  commission  does  not  make  such  vessels  pirates,  Sept.  17, 
1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  CoiKjress.  Naval  actions  on  European  waters;  attempts 
to  borrow  from  the  Dutch;  prospects  of  European  wars;  commissioners  have 
administered  oaths  of  allegiance,  but  stating  that  this  was  without  authority  ; 
question  as  to  authority  for  this  function,  and  also  as  to  registry  of  ships; 
questions  as  to  prisoners,  Sept.  17,  1778, 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Prisoners  at  Plymouth  and  elsewhere.  Efforts  made  to 
etfect  exchange,  Sept.  20,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  President  of  Congress.  Recognizing  services  of  J.  L. 
Austin,  Sept.  22,  1778. 

To  Adams.    As  to  income  of  commissioners,  Sept.  26,  1778.  {^aa  Expenses.) 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  W.Lee.  Declining  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  draft  of 
treaty  with  United  Provinces,  Sept.  26,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.     As  to  duties  on  Izard's  goods,  Sept.  26.  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.     As  to  same,  Sept.  26,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Izard.     As  to  same,  Sept.  26, 1778. 

(With  Lee  •Mid  Adams)  to  Sariine.    As  to  the  prize  Isabella,  Sept.  27, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Dumas.     As  to  treaty,  Sept.  27, 1778. 

(With  Lee,  and  Adams)  to  Ross.     As  to  accounts,  Sept.  30,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.  Question  as  to  whether  uegotiations  for 
passes  from  Barbary  powers  should  be  commenced,  Oct.  1, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.  Permits  and  free  passes  to  be  given  to  Fagan  to 
transport  French  merchandise  to  England,  Oct.  2^1778. 

(With  Adams)  to  Embassador  of  Naples.  Acknowledgment  of  admission  of  Amer- 
ican vessels  into  ports  of  Two  Sicilies ;  stating  the  (lags  of  the  different 
States,  Oct.  9, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.  As  to  question  of  Izard's  goods  captured  on  a 
ship;  as  to  release  of  American  seamen  impressed  in  the  Fox  and  Lirelij,  re- 
cently captured,  Oct.  12,  1778. 

(With  Lee,  and  Adams)  to  Izard.  Inclosing  Sartine's  answer  as  to  Izard's  goods, 
Oct.  13,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.  Further  application  as  to  Izard's  goods,  Oct.  13, 
1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Americans  taken  on  board  British  frigates.  Inquiry  as  to 
details  of  their  cases,  Oct.  13, 1778. 

(With  Zee  and  Adams)  to  Grand.     As  to  Cunningham  and  neutral  duties,  Oct.  13, 
•      1778. 

Attacks  on  by  Izard,  received  in  Congress,  Oct.  15, 1778. 

( With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Dumas.    As  to  proposed  treaty  witliHolland,  Oct,  16, 1778. 

(With  Lvc  and  Adams)  to  Hartley.     As  to  exchange  of  prisoners,  Oct.  20, 1778. 

Conunissioned  and  instructed  by  Congress,  Oct.  21,1778, 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Izard.     Inclosing  letter  from  Sartine,  Oct.  22, 1778. 

To  Hartley.    Terms  of  peace  ;  independence  essential  to,  Oct.  26, 1778. 

From  Congress.  Instructions  ;  independence  must  be  acknowledged,  and  no  peace 
without  France;  fidelity  to  France,  Oct.  28,1778.  (See  R.  H.  Lee  and  Lovell 
to  Franklin,  Oct.  28, 1778.) 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Van  Berckel.  Asking  for  an  interview  with  him,  Oct. 
29, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.  Announcing  readiness  to  exchange  declara- 
tions as  to  eleventh  and  twelfth  articles  of  treaty,  Oct.  29,  1778. 


102  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Franklin,  B. — Continued. 

(With  Adams)  to  Sarline.  As  toopportunity  of  capturing  British  whale  fishery  off 
Brazil,  Oct.  30,  1778.     (See  Fisheries.) 

To  Grand.  Excusiug  Cunnigham,  and  calling  attention  to  recent  British  out- 
rages ou  the  seas,  Nov,  3,  1778. 

(With  Lee  3iU(i  Adams)  to  President  of  Congress.  Inclosing  documents;  difficulties 
arising  from  want  of  funds;  acknowledging  communication  from  Ridley  ;  im- 
probability of  British  war  alliances  in  Europe  or  of  obtaining  aid  from  Russia, 
Nov.  7,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.     Asking  for  portraits  of  King  and  Queen 
Nov.  12,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.  Inclosing  papers;  importance  of  French  naval 
aid  on  American  waters,  Nov.  12,  1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.     As  to  relief  of  prisoners,  Nov.  15,  1778. 

To  Hartley.     As  to  exchange  of  prisoners,  Nov.  29, 1778. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Price.  As  to  his  entering  into  American  service,  Dec.  7, 
1778. 

From  Loivell,  Dec.  8, 1778. 

{See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Priestlei/.  Explaining  political  position  ;  refers  to  experiments ;  as  to  his  son  ; 
political  views,  Jan.  1, 1779. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.  Barbarity  of  British  warfare  in  the  United 
States ;  its  end  devastation  ;  importance  of  powerful  French  fleet  in  America ; 
the  value  of  such  intervention  to  France,  Jan.  1, 1779. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sartine.     As  to  relief  of  prisoners,  Jan.  2, 1779. 

To  Izard.     Declining  furtlier  to  advance  salary,  giving  reasons,  Jan.  4, 1779. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  IV.  Lee.  Improbability  of  Congress  in  Germany  which 
he  could  attend,  Jan.  13, 1779. 

To  Committee.  Explains  advances  of  four  thousand  guineas  to  W.  Lee  and  Izard, 
Jan.  15, 1779.     (See  Izard  to  Congress,  Jan.  28, 1779,  complaining  of  Franklin.) 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Vergennes.  As  to  vessels  waiting  for  convoy,  Jan.  24, 
1779. 

To  Hartley.     Exchange  of  prisoners ;  noble  conduct  of  France,  Jan.  25,  1779. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Lloyd  and  others.  All  French  ports  now  open  to  Ameri- 
can vessels;  no  information  can  now  be  given  as  to  relations  with  Barbary 
powers;  under  treaty  our  vessels  are  entitled  to  privileges  of  most  favored 
nations,  Jan.  26,  1779. 

From  Lovell,  Jan.  29,  1779. 
(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Llogd.     Consular  appointments  are  in  Congress,  Feb.  1,  1779. 

To  Hartley.     Vindicating  alliance  with  Franco,  Feb.  3,  1779. 

From  Lovell,  Feb.  8,  1779. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

(With  Adams)  to  Vergennes.  Asking  for  decision  of  the  questions  relative  to  the 
case  of  McNeal,  of  the  Mifflin  privateer,  Feb.  9,  1779. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Sohiveighauser.  Consent  given  to  return  of  plate  to 
Countess  of  Selkirk,  Feb.  10,  1779. 

(With  Lee  and  Adams)  to  Paul  Jones.  His  leaving  the  Banger  and  appointment 
of  Simpson  to  command  assented  to,  Feb.  10,  1779. 

To  Williams.  His  reception  as  minister  at  Versailles;  settlement  of  Williams' ac- 
counts, Feb.  13,  1779. 

''This  court  have  confidence  in  him  (Franklin)  alone."  Adams  to  S.  Adams,  Feb. 
14,  1779. 

To  Vergennes.     Announcing  his  appointment  as  sole  minister,  Feb.  14, 1779.     (See 
Adams. ) 
(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  16,  1779.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  103 

Franklin,  B.— Coutinucil. 

To  A.  Lee.     Calling  for  papers,  Feb.  18,  1779. 

Cliiiracter  of,  discussed.     Adams  to  Lovcll,  Feb.  20,  1779. 

From  A.  Lee,  Feb.  21,  1779. 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin,  same  dale.) 

To  ffarth'if.     Has  no  faith  in  England,  Feb.  22,  17V9. 

To  Paul  Jones.     As  to  the  Selkirk  silver,  Feb.  24,  1779. 

T(>  Vergennes.  As  to  presentation  at  cotiri;  as  to  sailiu];-  oi'  Alliance  frigate,  Feb. 
-5,  1779. 

To  Sartine.     As  to  convoy  and  proposed  sailing  of  the  Alliance,  Feb.  25,  1779. 

To  I'atrick  Henry.  Purchases  desired  by  Virginia  fiiilcd  through  Arthur  Lee's  in- 
terference, Feb.  26,  1779. 

To  Sartine.     As  to  reception  of  English  prisoners.  Mar.  2,  1779. 

To  Vergennes.     Appealing  for  loan,  Mar.  9,  1779. 

Circular  from,  respecting  Captain  Cook,  Mar.  10,  1779. 

To  A.  Lee.  As  to  papers ;  stating  that  in  consequence  of  the  latter's  charges 
against  Williams'  accounts  they  have  been  referred  to  a  committee  of  mer- 
chants for  examination.  Mar.  13,  1779. 

To  Blake  et  al.  Asking  them  to  examine  accounts  of  Williams,  Mar.  l".},  1779. 
(See  Apr.  18,  1779.) 

To  JVillianis.     As  to  reference  of  accounts,  M;ir.  16,  1779. 

To  Vergennes.     As  to  loans  and  Chaumont's  position,  Mar.  17,  1779. 

To  Dnmas.  As  to  propositions  of  Neufville,  and  W.  Lee's  views  as  to  German  con- 
gress. Mar.  18,  1779. 

To  ll'illiams.  As  to  accounts;  as  to  A.  Lee's  views  of  accounting  ;  as  to  Beaumar- 
chais.  Mar.  19,  1779. 

From  A.  Lee,  Mar,  19, 1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Hartley.     No  peace  without  independence.  Mar.  21,1779. 

To   La  Fayette.     Unprotectedness  of  British  sea-coast,  Mar.  22, 1779. 

Criticised.      JV.  Lee  to  Committee,  Mar.  25,1779. 

To  A.  Lee.  As  to  Grand's  accounts;  criticises  A.  Lee's  statements  as  to  those  ac- 
counts; proposes  to  refer  Williams'  accounts  to  referees,  Mar.  27,  1779. 

To  A.  Lee.     As  to  copies  of  papers.  Mar.  29,  1779. 

To  Sayre.  As  to  his  performances  at  Stockholm  ;  has  no  appointment  to  give 
him.  Mar.  31,  1779. 

To  W.  Lee.     As  to  contracts  for  supply  of  arms,  Apr.  2,  1779. 

To  Adams.  As  to  the  Alliance  and  her  cargo;  has  been  laid  up  by  gout,  but  was 
able  to  be  presented  at  court,  Apr.  3,  177*9. 

To  Williams.     As  to  accounts,  Apr.  8,  1/79. 

To  Joseph  Wharton  et  al.     Asking  them  to  act  as  referees,  Apr.  8,  1779. 

To  Adams.     As  to  preparations  for  sailing  in  the  Alliance,  Apr.  8,  1779. 

To  Johnson.     As  to  Lee's  application  for  arms,  Apr.  8,  1779. 

To  Sartine.  As  to  Americans  captured  by  France  from  British  ships,  Apr.  18, 
1779. 

Action  of  Congress  as  to  his  differences  with  otlier  ministers  abroad,  Apr.  IC,  20, 
3G,May  3,  June  10,  1779.     (See  Introduction,  ^^^  126,  145,  149). 

From  Hartley.     Apr.  18,  22,  1779. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Sartine.     As  to  Landais  and  the  Alliance,  Apr.  2:],  1779. 

To  Vergennes.  Complaining  of  admiralty  proceedings  at  Martinique,  and  as  to 
British  seizures  by  revolt,  Apr.  28,  1779. 

To  Paul  Jones.     Instructions,  Apr.  28,  1779. 

To  Vergennes.     As  to  arms,  etc.,  for  Maryland  and  Virginia,  May  3, 1779. 

To  Hartley.     Vindicating  French  alliance.  May  4, 1779. 


104  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Franklin,  B. — Continued. 

To  Adams.     On  sailing  for  America  ;  commends  Luzerne,  May  10, 1779. 

To  Sartine.     As  to  release  of  Americans  captured  by  British,  May  10, 1779. 

To  Congress.  Reports  his  reception  by  French  court;  agreement  as  to  exchange 
of  prisoners  ;  French  plan  of  campaign;  explains  non-payment  of  salaries  of 
Izard  and  W.  Lee  ;  difficulty  of  obtaining  funds;  movements  of  La  Fayette* 
May  26, 1779.     (See,  as  to  loan,  letter  of  June  1, 1779.) 

To  Gales.     Good  effects  of  Burgoyne's  surrender,  June  2, 1779. 

To  Marine  Committee.  Difficulties  as  to  the  Alliance;  burden  on  him  of  naval  du- 
ties: complication  and  expense  thereof,  June  2, 1779. 

To  Lovell.  His  silence  during  attacks  on  himby  Izard  and  Lee  ;  recommends  Lu- 
zerne, June  2, 1779. 

To  Bache.  Hopes  that  his  grandson,  Temple,  may  remain  with  him  as  secretary, 
June  2,  1779. 

To  Carroll.  Introducing  Luzerne;  difficulty  of  correspondence;  as  to  supply  of 
artificers,  June  3,  1779. 

To  Mrs.  Bache.  As  to  family  affairs  ;  his  dependence  on  his  grandson ;  impor- 
tance of  economy,  June  3,  1779. 

To  Council  of  Massachusetts  Bay.     As  to  La  Fayette,  and  other  officers,  June  4, 1779 

To  Jay.     Futility  of  Canada  exx3edition  ;  recommending  Jay,  June  9,  1779. 

Lo veil's  views  as  to  difficulties  at  Paris.     Lovell  to  Adams,  June  13,  1779. 

Exclusive  mission  of,  in  Paris  approved  by  French  Government.  Conference  of 
Congress  with  Gerard,  July  5,  1779. 

To  Gillon.     As  to  naval  movements,  July  5,  1779. 

To  Williams.     As  to  settlement  of  his  acounts,  July  8,  1779. 

To  Jones.     As  to  the  latter's  naval  movements,  July  8,  1779. 

From  Lovell,  July  9,  1779. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franllin,  same  date.) 

From  Lovell,  July  16, 1779. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Congress,  Aug.  14, 1779. 
(See  Congress  to  Franklin,  ssbBie  date.) 

From  A.  Lee,  Aug.  14, 1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Franklin,  sstiine  date.) 

To  La  Fayette.     Perversity  of  English  statesmen  ;  friendliness  of  French  ;  diffi- 
culties of  correspondence,  Aug.  19, 1779. 
From  La  Fayette,  zVug.  29, 1779. 
(See  La  Fayette  to  Franklin,  ssune  date.) 

From  Z)*n»«.§,  Sept.  14, 1779.  , 

(See  Dumas  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Schweighciuser;  exorbitance  of  latter's  charges;  accounts;  Swedish  claim  for 
damages;  care  of  sick  prisoners;  aid  should  be  given  destitute  prisoners, 
Sept.  17, 1779. 

Criticised  by  Adatns  to  McEean,  Sept.  20, 1779. 

To  Neshit.     Measures  taken  for  Cunningham's  relief,  Sept.  29, 1779. 

To  Lovell.     His  salary  paid  out  in  the  public  service,  Sept.  30, 1779. 

To  A.  Lee.     Approving  of  his  return  to  America,  Sept.  30, 1779. 

To  La  Fayette.     As  to  W.  T.  Franklin,  and  also  as  to  American  news,  Oct.  1, 1779, 

To  Congress.  Reporting  his  action  as  to  the  legation;  as  to  affairs  abroad;  as 
to  exchange  of  prisoners ;  as  to  Beaumarchais,  Oct.  4, 1779. 

To  Paul  Jones.     Giving  advice,  Oct.  15, 1779. 

To  Nenfville.     As  to  Paul  Jones  and  other  business  matters,  Oct.  15, 1779. 

To  Landais.     Requiring  him  to  meet  certain  charges,  Oct.  15, 1779. 

To  Xavy  Commissioners.     Narrating  Paul  Jones'  exploits,  Oct.  17, 1779. 

To  Lovell.  Asking  for  auditing  of  his  accounts  and  giving  general  information. 
Oct.  17    1779. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  105 

Franklin,  B. — ContiiuKul. 

To  Sartine.     As  to  wages  and  prize-money  in  certain  cases,  Oct.  lU,  1771). 

To  Austin.     As  to  Panl  Jones'  successes  and  other  naval  attairs,  Oct.  20,  1779. 

To  Commercial  Committee.     Caution  as  to  drafts,  Oct.  21, 1771). 

To  a  "  Friend  in  America."    As  to  political  aiiairs,  Oct.  25, 1779. 

To  Le  Bran.      As  to  A.  Lee's  return  to  the  United  States  and   Cunningham's 
probabhi  exchange,  Oct.  25, 1779. 

To  Cooper.     Efficiency  of  our  privateers;    England's  obduracy;  iniporlancc!  of 
economy;  friendliness  of  Europe,  Oct.  27, 1779. 

To  La  Fayette.     As  to  American  campaign,  Nov.  10, 1779. 

To  Vergennes.     Holtzen  dor  fit's  case;    irregularity  of  Deane's  engagements  with 
French  officers,  Dec.  8, 1779. 

From  Adams,  Dec.  8, 1779. 
(See  Adams  to  Franlclin,  same  date.) 

From  J.  P.  Jones,  Dec.  13, 1779. 

(See  J.  P.  Jones  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Bernstoff.     Protesting  against  Danish  seizures,  Dec.  22, 1779. 

From  Jay,  Dec.  27, 1779. 

(See  Jay  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Johnson.     Probabilities  of  Maryland  obtaining  military  stores;    Americans 
settling  in  Paris  are  subject  to  French  laws,  Dec.  29,  1779. 

To  Williams.     As  to  orders  of  goods,  Jan.  9,  1780. 

To  Hodyson.     As  to  exchange  and  relief  of  prisoners,  Jan  20,  1780. 

From  Jay,  Jan.  26,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Dumas.     Advice  as  to  conduct  in  Holland,  Jan.  27,  1780. 

To  Carmichael.     As  to  personal  affairs;  Spain  ;  A.  Lee;  Jan.  27,  1780. 

To  Hartley.     Destruction  preferable  to  abandonment  of  allies;  exchange  of  pris- 
oners;  British  barbarities,  Feb.  2,  1780. 

To  Congress.     Exploits  of  Paul  Jones;  his  quarrel  \vith  Landais;  exchange  of 
prisoners,  Feb.  4,  1780. 

To  Dowlin.     As  to  his  capture  of  prisoners,  Feb.  9,  1780. 

To  Lee  and  Izard.     As  to  their  passage  in  the  Alliance,  Feb.  19,  1780. 

To  fVhite  el  al.     As  to  detention  by  Denmark,  Feb.  21,  17cJ0. 

To  Jay.     As  to  advances,  etc.,  Feb.  22,  1780. 

To  Carmichael.     As  to  accounts,  Feb.  22, 1780. 

From  Lovell,  Feb.  24,  1780. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Hodgson.     As  to  exchange  and  relief^of  prisoners,  Feb.  20,  1780. 

To  Wren.     As  to  relief  of  prisoners  and  thanking  him  for  his  kindness  to  Ameri- 
can prisoners  in  England,  Yeh.  26,  1780. 

To  Panl  Jones.     As  to  the  Alliance  and  her  passengers;  as  to  Landais  and  Ban- 
croft, Mar.  1,  1780. 

To  Lnzerne.    Personal  relations  ;  Spanish  naval  reverses  ;  effect  of  war  on  France, 
Mar.  5,  1780. 

To  Washington.  Commends  La  Fayette  and  speaks  of  Washington  with  admiration 
and  affection,  Mar.  5,  1780. 

From  Bernstoff,  Mar.  8,  1780. 

(See  Bernstoff  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Navy  Board.    As  to  misconduct  of  Landais,  Mar.  15,  1780. 

To  Cooper.     Importance  of  French  alliance.  Mar.  16,  1780. 

To  Lovell.     As  to  condition  of  war.  Mar.  16,  1780. 

To  Griffin.     As  to  American  hospitality.  Mar.  16,  1780. 

To  Reed.     Denial  of  approval  of  Palteney's  plan  of  peace,  Mar.  19,  1780. 


106  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Fkanklin,  B. — CoutiunecL 
From  Jay,  Mar.  20,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Franlclin,  same  date.) 
To  Sartine.     As  to  miscouducb  of  Landais,  Mar.  20,  17«0. 
To  Carmichael.  As  to  La  Fayette;  notices  attacks  of  A.  Lee  ;  cordiality  of  France ; 

Adams  in  Paris,  but  does  not  say   wliat  is    bis  mission ;    as  to  Bancroft's 

agency;  leave-taking  of  Lee  and  Izard,  Mar.  31,  1780. 
To  Jay.     As  to  accounts  ;  Danisb  negotiations,  Apr.  7,  1780. 
To  Hodgson.    As  to  relief  of  prisoners,  Apr.  11,  17-0. 

To  Adams.    As  to  nomination  of  Williams  as  agent  for  Maryland,  Apr.  22, 1780. 
To  Dumas.     Gives  personal  advice,  Apr.  23,  1780. 
From  Jay,  Apr.  27,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Williams.     As  to  accounts.  May  10,  1780. 
To  Vergennes,  May  11,  1780. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franlclin,  same  date.) 
To  Vergennes.    As  to  sbip  Alliance ;  excbange  of  prisoners,  May  16,  1780. 
To  French  Admiralty.     As  to  sbip  Flora,  May  16,  1780. 
To  Cruisers.     Instructed  not  to  capture  Dutcb  sbips,  May  30,  1780. 
To  Sartine.   As  to  forwarding  sui^plies.  May  30,  1760. 

To  Torris.     Adopts  rule  tbat  •'  free  sbips  make  free  goods,"  May  30,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Supplies  to  be  forwarded  by  sbip  J^//ia/tce;    liiiaucial  difticulties  of 

tbe  United  States;  medal  of  Fleury  ;  relations  to  Denmark  ;  adoption  advised 

of  rule  tbat  ''free  sbips  make  free  goods  ; "  difficulties  in  excbange  of  prison- 
May  31,1780. 
(See  Franklin  to  Dumas,  June  5,  1780.) 
To  Congress.     Recommending  Paul  Jones,  June  1,  1780. 
To  Morris.     As  to  armed  neutrality,  June  3, 1780. 
To  Dumas.    Advice  in  business  matters,  June  5, 1780. 
To  Landais.     As  to  bis  misconduct,  June  7,  1780. 
To  Jay.     Importance  of  conferences  between  ministers ;  general  j)olitical  remarks, 

June  13,  1780. 
To  Vaughn.     As  to  books  sent ;  Lord  Tankerville'scase  ;  fatuity  of  Britisb  minis^ 

try,  June  15, 1780. 
To  Landais.     Ordering  biui  to  quit  tbe  Alliance,  June  16, 1780. 

To  Officers  of  Alliance.     Ordering  tbem  to  receive  Jones  as  captain,  June  16,  1780. 
To  Jones      Telling  bim  tbat  tbe  order  to  receive  A.  Lee  as  passenger  is  witb- 

drawu  if  Lee's  conduct  leads  to  mutiny,  June  17, 1780. 
To  Neshit.     As  to  trouble  on  tbe  Alliance,  June  17,  1780. 
To  Carmichael.     As   to  Sir  J.  Dalrymple ;    La  Fayette;    current  political    and 

social  events,  June  17,  1780. 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  sbips  Flora  and  Black  Princess;  seizing  enemy's  goods  on 

neutral  sbips  in  tbis  case  sustained,  June  18,  1780. 
To  Dumas.     Business  advice,  June  22,  1780. 
From  Adams,  June  22,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Johnson.     As  to  accounts,  June  22,  1780. 
To  Congress.     As  to  depreciation  of  currency,  June  26,  1780. 
To  Sartine.     As  to  brigantine  Fair  Play,  June  27,  1780. 
From  Adams,  June  29,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.  ) 
From  Vergennes,  June  30,  1780. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date. ) 
To  Vergennes.    Attachment  of  United  States  to  France  ;  protection  to  Frencbmen 
in  United  States,  July  10,  1780. 


I 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  107 

Franklin,  B. — Continued. 

From  Lovcll.  Kisquostin^-  liiiu  to  uid  Laurens  iu  obtaining  loans  iii.d  to  use  fur- 
ther efforts,  July  11,  1780. 

From  Hartley,  July  17,  17K0. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franldin,  same  date.) 

To  Vergennes.  Approving-  aetion  of  French  courts  as  to  the  Flora',  will  not  iu 
future  grant  commissions  to  French  subjects  as  piivateers,  July  25,  1780. 

To  Dumas.  Loss  of  Charleston  not  so  serious  ;  difficulties  between  Paul  Jones  and 
Landais,  July  26,  1780, 

From  Vergennes,  July  31,  1760. 
(See  Vergennes  to  Franldin,  same  date.) 

To  Congress.  Ditticulties  iu  respect  to  the  AUlavce,  Captain  Landais,  and  broils 
in  which  her  officers  and  seamen  were  engaged  ;  Captain  Jones  goes  home  iu 
the  Ariel,  which,  with  another  ship,  is  freighted  with  stores;  want  of  au- 
thority over  armed  ships  the  cause  of  difficulty  ;  difficulties  between  Adams 
and  Vergennes,  ending  with  Vergennes  declining  to  correspond  with  Adams, 
the  difference  between  Adams  and  Franklin  being  as  to  the  attitude  to  be 
assumed  to  France,  the  former  less,  the  latter  more  conciliatory ;  funds  for 
diplomatic  expenses  are  exhausted  ;  bills  in  favor  of  Beaumarchais  have  been 
paid;  principles  of  armed  neutrality  likely  to  be  established,  Aug.  9,  1780. 

To  Congress.  State  of  European  politics;  forwarding  supplies;  payment  of  in- 
terest ;  drafts  should  not  be  drawn  without  funds ;  fate  of  Blaelc  Princess  ;  con- 
suls should  be  apiiointed ;  asks  for  copies  of  any  charges  by  Lee  and  Izard, 
Aug.  10,  1780. 

To  Lewis.     Troubles  about  the  Alliance  ;  sailing  without  full  cargo,  Aug.  10,  1780. 

To  Lovell.     Difficulties  in  maintaining  punctual  correspondence,  Aug.  10, 1780. 

From  Lovell,  Aug.  15,  1780. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Vtrgcnnes.    As  to  recalling  commission  of  Black  Princess,  Aug.  15,  1780. 

From  Neufville,  Aug.  17,  1780. 

(See  Neufville  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Vergennes.     As  to  consular  functions,  Sept.  7,  1780. 

From  Lovell,  Sept.  7,  1780. 

(See  L^ovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Dumas.  As  to  Dumas'  relations  to  Congress  ;  anxiety  as  to  Laurens;  Searle's 
visit  to  Holland,  Oct.  2,  1780. 

To  Adams.  Prospects  of  campaign;  credit  abroad  depends  more  upon  what  we 
do  than  what  we  say,  Oct.  2,  1780. 

To  Jay.  Has  succeeded,  though  with  difficulty,  in  obtaining  funds  in  France  to 
pay  bills  drawn  on  Jay;  credit  obtained  for  Jay  in  Madrid;  encouraging 
news  from  America,  Oct.  2,  1780. 

From  Dumas,  Oct.  3,  1780. 

(See  Dumas  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Jay,  Oct.  5,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.  Financial  difficulties ;  refers  to  Adams'  differences  with  Virgeunes, 
and  says  if  Adams'  expressions  were  inadvertent,  they  may  be  explained, 
Oct.  8,  1780. 

To  Dumas.    As  to  current  events;  introduces  Searle,  Oct.  9,  1780. 

From  Adams,  Oct.  14, 1780. 

(See  Adam^i  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.     Asking  with  regard  to  obtaining  loan  in  Holland,  Oct.  20, 1780. 

From  Adams,  Oct.  24, 1780 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  tame  date.) 


108  PRELIMINARY    INDEX, 

FjiANKLiN,  B.— Continued. 

From  Jay,  Oct. 'sio,  17r:"0, 

(Sec  Jail  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  LovelL  Calling  Lis  attention  to  instruction  to  Jay  as  to  western  bounda- 
ries, Oct.  28, 1780. 

From  Jaif,  Oct.  30, 1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Franlclin,  same  date.") 

To  S.  Wharton.     As  to  latter's  return  to  America  and  other  matters,  Nov.  1, 1780. 

From  Adams,  Nov.  4, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Franllin,  same  date.) 

To  Sir  G.  Cooper.     Remonstrating  against  ill  treatment  of  Laurens,  Nov.  7, 1780. 

To  Vergcnnes.     Application  for  aid,  Nov.  19, 1780. 

From  Adams,  Nov.  24, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  FranMin,  same  date.) 

From  Congress,  Nov,  24, 1780. 
(See  Congress  (or  Huntington)  to  Franlclin,  same  date.) 

From  Cooper.     In  reply,  denying  charges  of  maltreatment,  Nov.  27, 1780. 

From  Congress.  Instructions  as  to  obtaining  further  aid  and  as  to  consul  at  Mo- 
rocco, Nov.  28, 1780. 

To  Searle.     As  to  Arnold's  treachery,  Nov.  30, 1780. 

From  Adams,  Nov.  30,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Franllin,  same  date.) 

To  Congress.  Stating  that  he  has  promised  that  the  States  would  eiigage  to 
furnish  provisions  to  the  French  forces  iii  America  in  exchange  for  money 
loaned  to  the  amount  of  |;400,000,  Dec.  2, 1780. 

To  Lovell.  Paul  Jones  has  been  driven  back  in  the  Ariel  in  a  storm,  but  is  re- 
fitting, Dec.  2,  1780. 

To  Congress.  Position  of  Laurens  somewhat  relieved ;  difficulties  arising  from 
British  seizure  of  his  papers  ;  unexpected  delays  in  forwarding  supplies;  Sar- 
tine  supplanted  by  Castries  ;  dangers  arising  from  failure  to  provide  funds; 
complaint  of  seizure  of  a  Portuguese  ship  by  the  Mars,  a  Massachusetts  priva- 
teer, Dec.  3,  1780. 

To  Dumas.  Financial  difficulties  ;  anxiety  as  to  the  course  Holland  will  take  un- 
der Yorke's  insult,  Dec.  3,  1780. 

Commendations,  of  in  the  highest  terms  and  deprecation  of  assaults  on  him. 
Vergennes  to  Luzerne,  Dec.  4, 1780. 

To  La  Faijette.     Political  prospects,  Dec.  9,  1780. 

To  Chaumont.     As  to  differences  in  accounting  with  Williams,  Dec.  11, 1780. 

From  Lovell,  Dec.  21, 1780. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Congress.  Additional  instructions,  mentioning  instructions  to  John  Laurens, 
Dec.  27,  1780. 

To  Dnmas.  As  to  affairs  in  Holland  ;  barbarity  of  the  British  treatment  of  Hol- 
land ;  has  still  conlidence  in  Dcane  ;  warring  at  sea  on  all  mankind  is  piracy, 
and  is  not  this  the  British  course  of  pouncing,  without  declaration  of  war,  on 
foreign  ships?  Jan.  18,1781. 

To  Jay.  As  to  diliflculty  in  loans  ;  as  to  Jay's  position  in  Spain ;  good  news  from 
America;  the  Mississippi  River  not  to  be  sold  to  Spain,  Jan.  27,  1781. 

From  Congress,  Feb.  5, 1781. 

(See  Congress  (Hanson)  to  FranMin,  same  date.) 

From  Carmichael,  Feb.  G,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Vergennes.  Letters  of  Congress  to  the  King;  instructions  of  Congress  that 
the  United  States  are  resolved  on  independence,  and  asking  aid  ;  affairs  in 
America  (nitical ;  supplies  and  naval  supremacy  iuj|)eratively  necessary  ; 
S^iaiu  fails  to  furnish  aid  and  supply  of  money   Feb.  13,  1781. 


Preliminary  index.  109 

Fkanklin,  13.— Continued. 

From  Adams,  Feb.  15,  1781; 

(Utie  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  20,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  FranJdin,  same  date.) 
From  Jat/,  Feb.  21, 1781. 

(See  Jay  to  FranJdin,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Strong  applications  for  money ;  will  accept  bills  and  do  his  best  to 
provide  payment,  Feb.  22,  17H]. 

To  Adams.  Great  danger  of  bankruptcy  ;  bills  drawn  without  funds  Feb  22 
t78T.  '  '      ' 

From  (Jarmiehaet,  Feb.  28,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Vergennes.     Asks  what  supplies  can  bo  sent  to  America,  Mar.  0   i78l 

From  CommiUre,  Mar.  9,  1781.  ' 

(See  Committee  (or  Lovcll)  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Rayneval.     Giving  list  of  most-needed  supplies,  Mar.  11,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Answer  of  Vergennes  to  the  request  for  supplies;  France  gives  six 
millions  to  the  United  States;  France  declines  the  offer  of  mediation  unless 
her  allies  accept,  and  advises  that  America  do  so;  asks  to  be  relieved  from 
his  position  on  account  of  ill  health;  recommends  his  grandson;  desires  his 
his  accounts  examined.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Mar.  12,  1781. 

From  Carmichael,  Mar.  12,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Franklin,  same  date.^ 

To  Letvis  and  the  Board  of  Admiralty.  Account  of  the  squadron  and  expedition 
of  J.  P.  Jones;  cause  of  delay  of  the  Alliance;  A.  Lee  and  Commodore  Gil- 
Ion  advise  Captain  Landais  to  take  possession  of  the  Alliance;  need  of  con- 
suls at  sea-ports;  desire  of  France  that  this  expedition  should  appear  an 
American  enterprise;  Chaumont  made  trustee  by.  the  captains;  disposition 
01  prizes  and  ransom,  Mar.  17,  1781. 

Advises  Dana  to  follow  Vergennes'  advice  as  to  presenting.himself  at  Russia; 
which,  however,  Dana  declines  to  do.     Dana  to  Congress,  Mar  21    1781 

To  6V^^«.     Imprisonment  of  Cunningham;  action  as  to  certain  claims.  Mar.  23, 

Confidence  reposed  in  him  by  French  conrt.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Mar.  24   1781 
From  Carmichael,  Mar.  30,  1781.  ' 

(See  Carmichael  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Lovell,  Mar.  31,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
Views  of,  as  to  Dana's  course  in  Russia.     Dana  to  Congress,  Mar.  31    1781      (See 

Franklin   to  Dana,  Apr.  7,   1781.)      (His   opinions   contravened   by  Adams 

Adams  to  Dana,  Apr.  18,  1781.) 
From  Jay.     Jay  obliged  to  let  bills  go  to  protest;  has  depended  on  Franklin's 

good  offices  for  support ;  must  continue  drawing  on  Franklin,  Apr.  —   1781 
To  Hodgson.    Digges's  rascality ;  efforts  to  relieve  prisoners,  Apr. 'l    1781  ' 
From  Dana,  Apr.  (3,  1781,  '  ' 

(See  Dana  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Dana.     Answer  to  Dana's  (luestions  'as  to  sentiments  of  Vergennes  upon  the 

mission  to  Russia;  his  own  opinions  on  that  subject,  Apr.  7,  1781. 
To  Adams.     Arnold's  bribe;  prospect  of  funds,  Apr.  7,  1781. 
To  Jay.     As  to  funds;  armed  neutrality ;  positions  of  Dana  and  of  Adams  as  to  their 

missions;  views  as  to  peace ;  desires  Congress  to  relieve  him  from  service  on 

account  of  his  age,  etc. ;  would  like  to  be  succeeded  bv  Jay  ;  arrangement  for 

paying  Jay's  bills;  Apr.  12,  178L 


110  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Franklin,  B.— Continued. 

To  Carmichael.  His  position  as  to  bis  enemies  ;  falls  back  on  maxim  of  Cbarles 
V:  ''I  and  time  'gainst  any  two,  cbauce  and  I  'gainst  time  and  you  ;  "  asks 
as  to  certain  books,  Apr.  12,  17bl.  (As  to  ovation  near  Paris,  see  note  by 
Sparlis  to  Franklin's  letter  to  Carmickael,  Apr.  12,  1781.) 

From  Adams.    As  to  latter's  failure  to  borrow  money  in  Holland,  Apr.  16, 1781, 

From  Carmicliael,  Apr.  20,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  FranMin,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.  Will  provide  for  bis  acceptances,  and  asks  for  a  joint  letter  to  Con- 
gress urging  tbat  no  more  bills  be  drawn  without  funds,  Apr.  21,  1781. 

"I  have  reason  to  be  jierfectly  satisfied  with  his  (Franklin's)  conduct  towards  me, 
and  that  I  have  received  from  him  all  the  aid  and  attention  I  could  wish  or 
expect.  His  character  is  very  high  here  (Madrid),  and  I  really  believe  that 
the  respectability  which  he  enjoys  throughout  Europe  has  been  of  general  use 
to  our  cause  and  country."     Jay  to  Congress,  Apr,  25,  1781. 

From  Adams,  Apr.  27,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Franldin,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.     As  to  certain  intercepted  letters,  Apr.  29,  1781. 

To  Jay.     As  to  acceptance  of  his  drafts.  May  5,  1781. 

From  Adams,  May  8,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Fovell,  May  9,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Dana.     As  to  expenses  of  latter's  mission.  May  11,  1781. 

To  La  Fayette.  Good  wishes  for  his  success  against  Arnold  ;  the  bargain  made  by 
the  latter;  hopes  soon  to  be  relieved  from  the  burdens  of  his  post;  hopes 
much  from  Laurens'  mission;  success  of  privateers,  Maj-^  14,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Energy  of  John  Laurens;  condition  of  accounts;  heavy  financial 
duties  imposed  on  Franklin;  increase  of  prisoners  in  England,  May  16,  1781. 

To  Lewis.     Difficulties  as  to  accounts,  May  16,  1781. 

From  Lovell,  May  17,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.  Surprise  at  Congress  continuing  to  draw  additional  bills  without 
funds;  Franco  can  not  he  further  relied  on  for  aid;  America  should  lay  a 
duty  on  exportation  of  tol)acco  to  pay  the  interest  on  her  debts;  liopes  to 
be  soon  relieved  from  his  duties  as  "merchant,  banker,  judge  of  admiralty," 
etc.,  May  19,  1781. 

From  Adams,  May  23,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Frankl'm,  same  date.) 

From  Jay,  May  31,  1781. 

{See  Jay  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Vergennes.     Earnest  appeal  for  funds,  June  4,  1781. 

To  Adams.     As  to  accounts,  June  6,  1781. 

From  Vergennes,  June  8,  1781. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Morris,  June  8,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Vergennes.  Renewal  of  earnest  appeal  for  funds  to  save  bills  from  disgrace; 
condition  of  Laurens'  accounts,  Jnue  10,  1781. 

To  Vergennes.     As  to  Toussard's  pension,  June  11,  1781. 

To  Adams.     As  to  what  are  properly  diplomatic  expenses,  June  11,  178L 

To  Congress.     Difficulties  as  to  drafts,  June  11,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Confusion  as  to  Beaumarchais'  accounts;  conflict  of  opinion  as  to 
whether  what  he  sent  was  a  gift  or  a  sale  ;  important  for  him  to  make  out  his 
case,  June  12,  1781.     (See  Introduction,  $$  61  ff. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  Ill 

Fjjanklin,  B. — Continued. 

From  Coufiress,  June  19,  1781. 

(See  Iluntingion  (or  Couf/irss)  to  Fraitlliii,  same  dale.) 
To  Cunningham.     As  to  Lis  release  aud  settlements,  June  20,  1781. 
From  Carmichael,  June  26,  1781. 

(See  CarmkhacI  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Fcrgenncs.     luclosinf;  "  peace  letter,"  June  27,  1781. 
To  Jackson.    As  to  accounts,  Juue  29,  1781. 
From  Jackson,  June  29,  1781. 

(See  Jackson  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Hartley.    As  to  peace,  June  30,  1781. 
To  Jaif.     As  to  inability  to  pay  bills,  Juno  30,  1781. 

To  Adams.     Asking  liim  to  accept  no  further  bills  without  advice;  embarrass- 
ments from  the  disbursements  of  Laurens,  June  30,  1781. 
From  Jackson  (three  letters),  July  2,  1781. 

(See  Jackson  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  loans,  July  6,  1781. 

To  Jackson.     As  to  Laurens'  disbursements  and  engagements,  July  C,  1781. 
From  Jag,  July  9,  1781. 

(See  Jay  to  Fiauklin,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Pressure  of  bills  for  which  he  has  no  fuuds,  July  11,  1781. 
From  Morris,  July  14,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  19,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  21,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Lovell,  July  21,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     Concerning  his  appointment,  and  offering  him  assistance;  as  to  fiuan 

cial  arrangements,  July  26,  1781. 
To  Dumas.     As  to  his  position  in  Holland,  Aug.  6,  1781. 
To  Adams.     As  to  his  account  for  salary,  Aug.  6,  1781. 
To  Brown.     As  to  Jay's  pamphlet  and  Digges'  villainy,  Aug.  6,  1781. 
To  Dumas.     Recent  events  in  the  United  States;  views  of  Holland,  Aug.  10,  1781. 
To  Adams.    As  to  Greene's  success  in  South  Carolina,  Aug.  12,  1781. 
To  Adams.     Congress  declines  to  accept  his  resignation  and  appoints  him  joint 

peace  commissioner,  Aug.  16,  1781. 
To  Carmichael.     Congress  declines  to  accept  Franklin's  resignation  and  places 
him  on  the  peace  commission ;  satisfaction  felt  at  this  mark  of  confidence, 
Aug.  24,  1781. 
From  Morris,  Aug.  28,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.    As  to  accounts  ;  as  to  Vaughan's  oath  of  allegiance  ;  want  of  intelligence 
Talbot's  case  ;  claims  of  prisoners;  Digges' embezzlements ;  financial  difficult- 
ies; peace  commission  ;  mediation  of  Russia  ;  news  from  Holland  ;  news  from 
America,  Aug.  30,  1781. 
To  Adams.    Embarrassment  from  pressure  of  bills  drawn  by  Congress,  Aug.  31, 

1781. 
To  Jay.     Fears  that  he  will  not  be  able  to  take  up  the  bills  drawn  on  the  latter; 

refusal  of  the  French  court  to  give  further  aid,  Sept.  4,  1781. 
To  Jay.     As  to  mediation  ;  desires  to  see  him  in  Paris,  Sept.  9,  1781. 
To  Morris.     Overdrawing  of  bills  by  Congress  ;  want  of  funds  to  meet  them  ;  mis- 
conduct of  Captain  Gillon,  Sept.  12, 1781. 


112  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Franklin,  B. — Cofltifitteci. 

To  Bache.  lustr acting  liica  to  obtain  certain  papers  in  the  hands  of  Galloway, 
Sept.  13, 1781. 

To  Congress.  Accepts  appoiutment  as  peace  coriimissionef;  bis  health  improved; 
satisfaction  of  Vergennes  with  the  peace  instfiictions,  Sept.  13,  1781. 

To  LovelL    As  to  exchange  of  Curson,  Gonveruenr,  and  Witherspoon,  Sept,  13, 1781. 

As  to  bills  drawn  on.     Luzerne  to  Cov.grcss,  Sept.  21, 1781. 

To  Jay.    As  to  aceoitnts  for  salaries  and  other  details,  Sept.  29, 1781. 

From  Adams  (two  letters),  Oct*  4,  1781. 
(See  Adams  to  Franl'Un,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.  Refers  to  the  new  coraniissioti  of  peace  received  from  Congress;  no- 
immediate  prospect  of  action ;  trusts  that  the  Dntch  loan  will  enable  him  to 
meet  Adams'  heavy  acceptances,  Oct.  5,  1781. 

To  Adams.     As  to  Gillon's  difficulties  and  other  business  ffiSslters',.  Oct.  16,  .1781 

T^o  Jackson.     As  to  Gillon's  misconduct,  Oct.  16,  1781.     (See  GUim%.J 

From  Livingston,  Oct.  20-24,  1781. 
(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Livingston.     Urging  him  to  withdraw  his  resignation,  Oct.  25, 1781. 

To  Congress.  As  to  exchange  of  prisoners;  British  severity  in  such  cases;  medi- 
ation refused  by  Britain,  as  she  will  only  treat  with  the  United  States  as  sub- 
jects ;  great  absorption  of  funds  in  his  hands ;  doubts  as  to  Captain  Gillon's 
capacity;  improvident  purchases  made  in  Holland  under  Colonel  Laurens ; 
bad  management  in  sending  over  supplies;  should  be  a  maritime  agent  ap 
pointed  for  the  purpose  ;  friendliness  of  France,  but  that  friendliness  should 
not  be  overburdened,  Nov.  5,  1781. 

To  Morris.  Self-support  essential  to  independence;  no  large  remittances  to  be 
expected  from  Europe  ;  private  loans  can  not  be  secured  ;  Spain's  finaneial 
troubles;  great  drain  on  France  aud  failure  of  revenue  ;  economy  the  basis' 
of  all  true  government ;  heavy  deductions  to  come  from  Dutch  loan  ;  France 
has  not  guarantied  payment  of  interest  bills;  approves  of  Morris'  scheme  for 
bank,  Nov.  5,  1781. 

To  Adams.  Letters  in  post  iuspected  on  the  road ;  British  Government  in  no 
hurry  to  exchange  Burgoyne  for  Laurens ;  difficulty  in  providing  funds  to 
meet  payment  of  bills ;  expense  of  prisoners  returning  to  the  United  States' 
mediation,  acceptance  of,  involves  no  submission  to  the  mediator's  judgment, 
though  it  may  give  him  undue  influence  ;  imprudent  actions  of  Captain  Jack- 
son in  overpurchase  of  goods;  indiscretion  of  Captain  Gillon  ;  his  great 
difficulty  in  raising  money;  mistakes  of  Neufville ;  Congress  should  never 
draw  without  certainty  of  funds,  Nov.  7,  1781  ;  Nov.  26,  1781. 

To  Lanrens,  As  to  Franklin's  grandson,  whom  he  is  unwilling  to  part  with  ;  ex- 
planation of  misconduct  of  Laurens'  agents  in  shipping  goods  in  Holland, 
Nov.  8,  1781. 

To  Hodgson.     Supplying  funds  for  Laurens,  then  in  Tower,  Nov.  19,  1781. 

To  Witherspoon.     As  to  his  son's  release,  Nov.  19,  1781. 

To  Vergennes.     Congratulations  on  surrender  of  Cornwallis,  Nov.  20,  1781. 

To  Vanglian.  Sends  £100  for  the  relief  of  Laurens;  as  to  Laurens'  exchange; 
Vaughan's  marriage  and  his  brother,  Nov.  22,  1781. 

To  Adams.     As  to  business  matters,  Nov.  23,  1781. 

From  Livingston,  Nov.  24,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Livingston,  Nov.  25,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.  Misconduct  of  parties  concerned  in  shipments  from  Holland;  moral 
effect  of  Cornwallis'  victory,  Nov.  26,  1781. 

From  Adams,  Nov.  26,  1781. 
(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date,) 


PRELlxMlNAKY    INDEX.  113 

Franklin,  B.— Continued. 

From  Morris,  Nov.  27,  1781. 

(Soo  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Dec.  5,  1781. 

(Sec  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Adatns.     Objection  to  Neiifville's  course,  Dec.  14,  1781. 
To  Alexander.     Indepeudouco  is  a  sine  qua  non,  Dec.  15,  1781. 
To  Hartley.     As  to  war,  Dec.  15,  1781. 
From  Alexander,  Dec.  15,  1781. 

(See  Alexander  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  16,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     As  to  paynieut  of  bills,  Dec.  17, 1781. 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  disposition  of  funds,  Dec.  27,  1781. 

To  Miss  Laurens.     As  to  her  father's  situation  in  the  Tower;  measures  for  his  re- 
lief and  his  petition  to  Parliament,  Dec.  29,  1781. 
From  Hartley,  Jan.  2,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston.     As  to  terms  of  peace,  Jan.  7,  1782. 
To  Morris.     Danger  of  overdrafts,  Jan.  9,  1782. 

To  Hartley.     In  negotiating  for  peace,  America  would  ''spurn  the  thought  of 
deserting  a  noble  and  generous  friend  for  the  sake  of  a  truce  with  an  un- 
just and  cruel  enemy  ;  "  no  truce  is  admissible  ;  Lord  North  to  be  informed 
of  this,  Jan.  15,  1782. 
(Replied  to  by  Hartley,  Jan.  24,  1782.) 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  fraudulent  use  of  Dutch  colors  by  British  vessels,  Jan.  18, 

1782. 
To  Jay.  Financial  difficulties  from  overdrafts  ;  France  can  not  be  unduly  urged  ; 
loan  in  Holland  absorbed  by  advances  ;  complaining  of  conduct  of  Spain  ; 
advices  as  to  Jay's  course  ;  as  to  proper  charges  for  .salary,  etc. ;  Deane's 
wrong  course  and  probable  defection  ;  English  desire  for  a  separate  peace, 
Jan.  19,  1782. 
To  Baclte.     Introducing  Jolin  Vaughan,  Jan.  19,  1782, 

To  Jay.     Financial  difficulties;    unfriendly  attitude   of  Spain;  diplomatic  ex- 
'     peuses;  Jay's  kindness;    Deane's  mischievous  course;    triumph  at  York- 
town;  views  as  to  peace,  Jan.  19,  1782. 
To  Carmichael.     Barclay's  arrival  as  consul ;  money  difficulties,  Jan.  23,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  23,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  25,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  26,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     As  to  difficulty  in  obtaining  loans  (two  letters),  Jan.  28,  1782. 
To  Vergennes.     Asking  for  a  statement  for  Morris,  Feb.  1,  1782. 
To  Vergennes.     Commending  Du  Portail,  Feb.  2,  1782. 
To  Adams.     As  to  acceptances,  Feb.  4,  1782. 
From  Congress.     Instructed  to  take  formal  action  to  realize  Dutch  loan.     Hanson 

(President  of  Congress),  to  Franklin,  Feb.  5,  1782. 
To  Cunningham.     As  to  papers;  Digges'  villainy,  Feb.  6,  1782. 
To  Adams.     Embarrassment  as  to  drafts,  Feb.  12,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  13,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  accounts,  Feb.  15,  1782. 
8  WH 


114  PRELIMINARY    INDEX 

Franklin,  B. — Continued. 

To  Hartley.     No  pacification  with  England  except  on  acknowledgment  of  inde- 
pendence and  iii  conceit  witli  France,  Jan.  15,  24;  Feb.  16,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  20,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  FranJdin,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes,  Feb.  27,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Burke,  Feb.  28,  1782. 

(See  Burke  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Hartley,  Feb.  28,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  Danisli  claims,  Mar.  3,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Popularity  of  La  Fayette ;    friendliness  of  France ;   Arnold  in 

England;  Deane's  apostacy ;  probabilities  of  peace,  Mar.  4,  1782. 
To  Morris.     Financial  jiroblems;  Gillou's  misconduct;  difficulties  as  to  Holland 

purchases;  Captain  Barry's  course.  Mar.  4,  1782. 
To  Morris.     Financial  complications;  difficulty  in  forwarding  goods;    growing 

prospects  of  peace  ;  importance  of  strong  etforts,  Mar.  9,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  9,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Hartley,  Mar.  11,  12,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Improved  public  tone  in  England,  Mar.  11,  1782. 
To  Jay.     Payment  of  drafts;  better  feeliug  in  England,  Mar.  10,  1782. 
From  Hartleij,  Mar.  21,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Digges,  Mar.  22,  1782. 

(See  Digges  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Rayneval.     Inclosing  papers,  etc..  Mar.  22,  1782. 

To  Williams.     As  to  transport  of  goods ;  jirospects  of  peace,  Mar.  23,  1782.   _ 
From  Morris,  Mar.  23,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  26,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  La  Fayette.     As  to  release  of  American  prisoners.  Mar.  28,  1782. 
To  Morris.     As  to  course  of  Captain  Barry  ;  as  to  transport  of  goods;  financial 
difficulties;  change  of  British  policy;  Deane's  disgrace  ;  his  accounts,  Mar. 
30,  1782. 
To  Livingston.    As  to  British  policy,  Mar.  30,  1782. 

To  Adanis.     Slowness  of  Dutch  ;  probabilities  of  campaign.  Mar.  31,  1782. 
From  Harthy,  Mar.   31,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Hartley.    As  to  peace,  and  refers  him  to  the  commissioners.  Mar.  31,  1782. 
To  Hartley.     Has  no  confidence  in  Digges;    i)roposes  release  of  prisoners,  Apr. 

5,  1782. 
To  Chastell ax.     Prospects  of  peace  ;  French  services  in   United  States;  personal 

compliments,  Apr.  6,  1782. 
To  Morris.     Change  of  ministry  in  England;  visit  of  Prince  Broglie  to  America, 

Apr.  8,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     To  same  effect,  Apr.  8,  1782. 
To  Rayneval.     Prospects  of  peace,  Apr.  12,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     English  proposals  of  peace  to  Dutch,  Apr.  12,  1782. 
To  Hartley.     British  intrigues  with  Fr.iacj  for  separate  peace,  Apr.  13,  1782. 
To  Adams.     To  same  effect,  Apr.  13,  1782. 

To  Vergennes.     On  peace  negotiations,  Apr.  15,  1782  (given  in  Franklin's  journal, 
under  date  of  July  1,  1782). 


J 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  115 

Franklin,  B. — Continued. 

From  Morris,  Apr.  17,  17«2. 

To  Shelbiirne.     As  to  peace,  Apr.  18,  1782  (given  in  Franlx:Uii\'i  Jounial,  under  date 
of  July  1,  1782). 

(Sec  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Adams  and  Laurens,  Apr.  20,  1782;  Shelhnvne  to,  Apr.  20,  1782;  to  Adams,  Apr. 
21, 1722;  and  Laurens  to,  Apr.  20,  1782,  arc  given  in  Franklin'' s  journal,  under 
date  of  July  1,  1782. 
To  Jaij.     Undertakes  payment  of  bills  drawn  on  Jay ;  urges  Jaifa  attendance  at 
Paris,  Apr.  22,  1782. 
From  Vergennes,  Apr.  23,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Jay    British  arrangement  for  exchange  of  prisoners;  separate  peace  refused, 

Apr.  24,  1782. 
Correspondence  of,  with  Jay  as  to  financial  matters.     Reported  by  Jay  to  Living- 
ston, Apr.  28,  1782. 
From  Hartley,  May  1,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  2,  1782. 
(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date,  in  Franklin^s  journal,  under  date  July  1, 
1782.) 
From  Hartley,  May  3,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date,  in  Franklin'' s  journal,  July  1,  1782.) 
To  Vergennes.     Peace  negotiations,  May  4,  1782  (given  in  Franklin^s  journal,  under 
date  of  July  1,  1782;  and  so  of  Franklin  to  Adams,  of  May  8,  1782,  and  ut 
Hartley  to  Franklin  of  May  3,  1782). 
From  Vergennes,  May  5,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date,  in  Franklin's  journal,  July  1,  1782.) 
To  Shelburne  and  Grenville,  May  10,  1784  (given  in  Franklin^s  journal,  under  date 

of  July  1,  1782). 
To  Hartley,  May   13,  17  82,  and   Hartley  to  Franklin,  of  same  date,  are  given  in 

Franklin'' s  jour nal,  under  date  of  July  1,  1782. 
To  Shelburne,  May  IG,  1782,  given  in  Franklin\s  journal,  under  date  of  July   1, 

1782;  and  so  of  Franklin  to  Laurens,  of  May  25,  1782. 
From  Morris,  May  17,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  May  17,  1782. 

(See  H.  Laurens  to  Franklin,  same  date,  in  Franklin'' s  journal,  July  1,  1782.) 
From  Livingston,  May  22,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingslon,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  23,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Hartley,  May  25,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  29,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  30,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Grenville,  May  31,  1782,  is  given  in  Franklin's  journal,  under  date  of  July  1, 

1782,  and  so  of  Franklin  to  Adams,  of  June  2,  1782. 
To  Oswald.     As  to  liberation  of  Cornwallis,  June  5,  1782  (in  reply  to  Oswald  to 

Franklin,  June  5,  1782). 
From  Adams,  June  13,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 


116  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Franklin,  B. — Contiuued. 

From  Livingston,  June  23,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franllin,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Juue  24,  1782. 

(See  Laurens  to  FranJclin,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Loans  ;  condition  of  peace  negotiations,  June  25,  1782. 
To  Oswald,   of  June  27,   1782  (given  in  Franklin^s  journal,  under  date  of  June 

26, 1782). 
To  Cooper.   Intrigues  of  England  as  to  separate  peace,  June  28,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Views  as  to  peace,  June  28,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Exchange  of  Laurens;   passage  of  enabling  act;    George  Ill's 

rancor  and  duplicity;  no  separate  peace,  June  29,  1782. 
From  Morris,  JuJy  1,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  July  5,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  July  9,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Franklin,  same  date.)  ^ 

From  Hartley,  July  26,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Grantham,  July  26,  1782. 

(See  Grantham  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
Journal  of  peace  negotiations,  from  Mar.  21  to  July  1,  1782,  entered  under  July 

1,  1782. 
To  Enibassador  from  Portugal.     As  to  Portuguese  proliibitions,  July  1,  1782. 
To  Laurens.     As  to  peace  commission,  July  2,  1782. 
To  La  Fayette.    Mentioning  Rockingham's  death  and  Fox's  resignation,  July  9j 

1782. 
To  Hartley.     As  to  peace  and  other  matters,  July  10,  1782. 
To  Vaughan.     As  to  war^  July  10,  1782. 
To  Vaughan.     As  to  conditions  of  peace,  July  11,  1782. 
To  Oswald.     As  to  conditions  of  peace,  July  12,  1782. 
To  Shelhurne.     As  to  conditions  of  peace,  July  12,  1782, 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  alleged  unlawful  seizures  of  ships,  July  18,  1782. 
To  La  Fayette.     Cornwallis'  proclamation  as  to  hanging  prisoners  may  take  him 

out  of  the  protection  of  the  laws  of  war,  July  24,  1782. 
Addressed  as  to  peace  by  Hartley,  July  28,  1782. 
Addressed  as  to  peace  by  Grantham,  July  26,  1782. 
Addressed  as  to  peace  by  Shelhurne,  July  27,  1782. 
From  Vergemics,  July  28,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin  same  date.) 
To  Oswald.     As  to  Asgill's  case,  July  28,  1782. 
To  Vergennes.     Announcing  Oswald's  commission  to  treat,  Aug.  8,  1782. 

(Answered  by  Vergennes,  Aug.  8,  1782.) 
From  Livingston,  Aug.  9,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  LJvingston.     Money  affairs;  difiticulties  about  the  Z>t»/t /JTomwic  Richard;  Chau- 
mont's  insolvency;  memorials  of  Saratoga  and  Yorktoivn  ;  delay  in  uegotia-^ 
-  tions ;  Laurens'  ill  health,  Aug.  12,  1782. 
To  Morris.     Beaumarchais'  claim;  payments  to  W.Lee;  other  payments,  Aug. 

12,  1782. 
From  Hartley,  Aug,  16,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes,  Aug.  23,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  117 

Franklin,  B. — Contiaucd. 

To  Livingston.     As  to  his  grandson's  salary  as  secretary ;  never  asked  a  pnblic 

office,  or  refused  oae  when  public  required,  Sept.  'A,  1782. 
Course  of,  to  H.  Laurens.  Laurens  to  Congress,  Sept.  r»,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  5,  1782. 

(See  Livingston,  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Oswald,  Sept.  5,  1782. 

(See  Oswald  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Grantham.     As  to  desirability  of  peace,  Sept.  11,  1782. 
From  Livingston  (two  letters),  Sept.  12,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Hartley.     Has  been  suffering  from  gravel  and  gout ;  a   truce  now  impract. 

cable,  Sept.  17, 1782. 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  18,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Oswald,  Sept.  24,  1782. 

(See  Oswald  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes,  Sept.  24,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     As  yet  no  definite  result  in  the  negotiations,  Sept.  26,  1782. 
From  Morris  (two  letters),  Sept.  27,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  G.  Morris,  Sept.  28,  1782. 

j(See  G.  Morris  io  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  30,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  1,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes,  Oct.  3,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Hartley,  Oct.  4,  1782. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  7,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Progress  of  peace  negotiations.     Question  as  to  ministers'  sal- 
aries; Rayneval  sent  by  the  ministry  to  Shelburne,  in  order  to  determine  as 
to  his  real  purposes,  Oct.  14,  1782. 
To  Adams.     Precluded  from  correspondence  by  long  and  painful  illness  ;  nego- 
tiations have  re-opened,  Oct.  14,  17^2. 
To    Vergennes.     Returns  map,  with  boundaries  of  United  States  marked  out,  Oct. 

14,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Oct.  15,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Townshend,  Oct.  23,  1782. 

(See  Towwihend  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  27,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Suggestions  as  to  quadruple  alliance,  Nov.  3,  1782. 
To  Townshend.     Hopes  for  pacification,  Nov.  4,  1782. 
To  Vergennes.     Presses  another  loan,  Nov.  8,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  9,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov,  21,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 


118  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Franklin,  B. — Continued. 
From  Jay,  Nov.  24,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  FranlxUn,  same  date.) 
To  Oswald.     Showing  how  much  greater  were  the  losses  sustained  by  patriots  in 

the  Revolution  than  by  loyalists,  Nov.  26,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  27,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  FranTclin,  same  date.) 
To  Vergenues.     Announcing  signature  of  treaty  of  peace,  Nov.  29,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Dec.  3,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  FranTclin,  same  date.) 
From  Livingslon,  Dec.  3,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  FranlUn,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  4,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franllin,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Announcing  signature  of  treaty  of  peace,  Dec.  4,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Giving  circumstances  of  negotiations  ;  prospects  of  further  aid 

from  France  ;  treaties  with  other  powers,  Dec.  5,  1782. 
From  La  Fayette,  Dec.  8,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Vergennes.     Announcing  the  sailing  of  the  Washington,  with  a  British  pass- 
port, with  the  preliminaries,  Dec.  15,  1782. 
(For  answer,  see  Vergennes  to  FranJcliu,  Dec.  16,  1782.) 
To  Vergennes.    Explains  the  passport  for  the  Washington  ;    "no  peace  is  to  take 
place  between  us  and  England  until  you  have  concluded  yours  ;  "  explana- 
tion of  non-consultation,  Dec.  17,  1782. 
To  Morris.     France  has  supplied  600,000  livres  to  go  at  once,  and  the  rest  of  six 
millions  to  be  paid  quarterly  ;  peace  not  yet  secure  ;  Parliament  may  reject 
the  articles  ;  "  our  people  should  do  more  for  themselves,"  Dec.  23,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Exchange  of  powers  with  Sweden  ;  proposition  as  to  copper  coin, 

Dec.  24,  1782. 
From  Vergennes,  Dec.  25,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.  ) 
To  Morris.     Hopes  of  additional  loan  from  France  ;  Adams'  prospects  in  Holland  ; 
matters  of  accounts ;  Penet's  absconding  ;  separate  States  ought  not  to  at- 
tempt separate  loans,  Dec.  25,  1782. 
To  Cooper.     Character  of  tinancial  articles  ;  fidelity  to   French  engagements  es- 
sential, Dec.  26,  1782. 
His  allowance  to  W.  T.  Franklin,  as  his  secretary,  approved.   Congress,Dec.  27,1782. 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  2,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Livingslon.     Moderation  in  his  charges  does  him  honor,  Jan.  2,  1783. 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  6,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris.     Looked  to  to  save  the  country  from  financial  ruin,  Jan.  11,  1783. 
From  Morris.     As  to  loans  and  salaries,  Jan.  13,  1783. 
To  Oswald.     Suggestions  for  abandoning  privateering  ;  cost  of  protection  of  sugar 

islands;  advantages  of  their  neutralization,  Jan.  14,  1783. 
From  Vergenues,  Jan.  18,  1783. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Vaughan,  Jan.  18,  1783. 

(See  Vaughan  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Announces  cessation  of  hostilities  between  France,  Spain,  Eng- 
land, and  the  United  States,  Jan.  21,  1783. 
To  Vergennes.     Acknowledging  loan  of  six  millions,  Jan.  25,  1783. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  119 

Franklin,  B. — Continued. 

Fvom  Jay.     Expressive  of  peraonal  respect  and  of  approval  of  appointment  of 

W.  T.  Franklin  as  secretary,  Jan.  2(!,  17^:5. 
Danish  Government  appeals  to.      liosencroue  to  Walter 8dorj]\  Feb.  22, 1783. 
From  Laurens,  Mar.  (3, 1783. 

(See  Laurens  to  Franklin,  same  date.  ) 
To  Livingston.     Signature  of  Swedish  treaty,  Mar.  7,  1783. 
To  Morris.     Advising  of  loan  of  six  millions;  but  no  further  ai<l  this  year  to  be 

expected,  from  the  wretched  state  of  French  linances,  Mar.  7,  1783. 
From  Hartley,  Mar.  12,  1783. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Mar.  15,  1783. 

(See  Laurens  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  commercial  freedom  between  France  and  the  United  States, 

Mar.  16,  1783. 
To  Hartley.    Expressing  conciliatory  views,  Mar.  23,  1783. 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  printing  constitutions  of  States,  Mar.  24,  1783. 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  26,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Hartley,  Mar.  31,  1783. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Salva,  Apr.  1,  1783. 

(See  Salva  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
High  opinion  of,  by  Madison.     Madison  to  Eandolpli,  Apr.  1,  1783. 
From  Laurens,  Apr.  4,  1783. 

(See  Laurens  to  Franklin,  same  date.)  • 

To  Rosencrone.     As  to  treaty  with  Denmark,  Apr.  13,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Cessation  of  letters;  treaty  with  Denmark;  Laurens'  recovery; 

foreign  desire  tor  American  trade,  Apr.  15,  1783, 
From  Fox.     Introducing  Hartley,  Apr.  19,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Introducing  Count  Del  Veome,  Apr.  27,  1783. 
To  Vergennes.    As  to  ceding  to  Congress  stores  left  by  Rochambeau  at  Baltimore. 

May  4,  1783. 
From  Vergennes.     Hoping  he  will  attend  court,  May  5,  1783. 
To  Vergennes.     Expecting  to  attend,  May  5,  1783. 
To  Hartley.     As  to  privateering,  May  8,  1783. 
From  L/rvingston,  May  9,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  12,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Mo7'ris  (two  letters),  May  26,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  31,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Treaties  in  preparation  with  Sweden  and  Portugal;  definitive 

treaty  not  yet  closed;  recommends  Bancroft,  June  12,  1783. 
From  De  Stael,  June  13,  1783. 

(See  De  Stael  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
And  Jay  to  Vergennes.     As  to  accounts,  June  18,  1783. 
From  Boudinot  (President  of  Congress),  inclosing  papers,  June  18,  1783. 
From  Rohan,  June  21,  1783. 

(See  Rohan  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
(With  Jay)  to  Vergennes.     Appealing  to  him  to  save  their  bills  from  protest,  June 

28,  1783. 
To  Vergennes.     Additional  appeal,  July  4,  1783. 


120  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Fkanklin,  B.— Continued. 

To  Laurens.     Definitive  treaty  to  follow  preliminaries,  July  6,  1783. 

From  Bosencrone,  July  8,  1783. 

(See  Bosencrone  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Jay,  July  9,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  FranMin,  same  date.) 

From  Crocco,  July  13,  1783. 

(See  Crocco  to  Franldin,  same  date.) 

To  Fergennes.     Urging  additional  loan,  July  14,  1783. 

From  Laurens,  July  17,  1783. 

(See  Laurens  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Livingston.  Glad  that  tlie  preliminaries  were  received  with  satisfaction ; 
regards  the  conduct  of  Vergennes  and  the  King  in  respect  to  peace  as  fair;  re- 
grets Adams'  constant  and  public  assertions  to  the  contrary ;  pernicious  effect 
of  navigation  proclamation ;  question  of  retaliation ;  negotiations  with  Portu- 
gal and  Denmark  ;  desires  to  withdraw  fi'om  service  ;  Chaumont's  position  as 
to  Alliance  and  Bon  Homme  Bichard,  regrets  Livingston's  resignation  ;  asks 
for  diplomatic  position  for  his  grandson  ;  negotiations  with  Bavaria;  dangers 
of  Algiers;  prisoners  of  war  discharged,  July  22,  1783. 

To  Morris.  Necessity  of  exertion  at  home,  for  no  more  money  is  to  be  obtained 
abroad,  July  27,  1783. 

(With  Jay,  and  Laurens)  to  Livingston.  British  indecision  as  to  definitive  treaty ; 
may  probably  have  to  droj)  all  commercial  articles;  all  treaties  to  be  signed 
together,  July  27,  1783. 

From  Pope's  Nuncio,  as  to  establishing  a  bishop  or  an  apostolic  vicar  in  the 
United  States, -July  28,  1783. 

His  negotiating  with  Denmark  objected  to.    Adams  to  Livingston,  Aug.  13,  1783. 

From  Boudinot.  Advising  him  of  the  ratification  of  his  treaty  with  Sweden  with 
verbal  changes,  Aug.  15, 1783. 

His  ascendency  at  Versailles  complained  of.     Adams  to  Gerry,  Aug.  15,  1783. 

To  Vergennes.  Informing  him  that  the  American  commissioners  were  inclined  to 
accept  the  British  proposition  of  making  the  provisional  treaty  definitive. 
Aug.  16, 1783. 

To  Laurens.     To  same  effect,  Aug.  21,  1783. 

From  Bayntval.     As  to  time  of  signature,  Aug.  29,  1783. 

From  Hartley.     As  to  time  of  signature,  Aug.  29,  1783. 

To  Congress.     Definitive  treaty  to  be  signed  Sept.  3,  Aug.  31,  1783. 

To  Fox.     Connnending  Hartley,  Sept.  5,  1783. 

To  Earthy.  Letter  of  friendliness;  advising  prompt  evacuation  of  New  York, 
Sept.  fi,  1783. 

From  Boudinot,  Sept.  9,  1783. 

(See  Boudinot  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Jay.  Giving  a  letter  from  America  charging  Franklin  with  being  derelict  on 
the  fishery'  question,  and  asking  for  an  answer,  Sept.  10, 1783. 

From  Jatj.     Fully  disproving  charge,  Sept.  11, 1783. 

From  Adams.     Fully  disproving  charge,  Sept.  13,  1783. 

To  Congress.  Regrets  Livingston's  resignation  ;  signature  of  definitive  treaty  ; 
negotiations  with  Denmark,  Portugal,  and  Morocco j  friendly  attitude  of 
France;  Vergennes  refuses  to  sign  treaty  with  England  until  after  signature 
of  our  definitive  treaty,  Sept.  13, 1783. 

From  Adams,  Sept.  13,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Hartley,  Sept.  24, 1783. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  121 

Franklin,  B,— Continued. 

From  Morris,  Sept.  30, 1783. 
(See  Morris  to  Franklhi,  same  date.) 

To  Hartley.     As  to  fricudly  relatioua,  Oct.  16, 22, 1783. 

To  Congress.    As  to  public  events  and  Calvert's  claim,  Nov.  1, 1783. 

From  Crocco,  Nov.  25,  1783. 

(See  Crocco  to  Franldin,  same  date.) 

To  Laurens.    As  to  authorship  of  certain  anonymous  letters,  Dec.  0,  1783. 

To  Fergcnnes.     As  to  Roman  Catholic  bishop  in  America,  Dec.  1"),  1783. 

To  Carmichael.  As  to  whether  Crocco,  alleged  minister  for  Morocco,  is  genuine, 
Dec.  15, 1783. 

To  Crocco.  Saying  that  no  answer  can  be  given  to  his  proposals  until  inquiry, 
Dec.  15,  1783. 

To  Congress.  British  unwillingness  to  treat  under  the  eye  of  the  French  court; 
British  distrust  of  American  institutions  and  exaggeration  of  American 
defects;  negotiations  with  Denmark,  Portugal,  and  Morocco  still  open; 
Paul  Jones'  expenses  were  paid  wholly  by  France,  Dec.  25,  1783. 
Morris.  Mentioning  imprudent  and  violent  remarks  of  Adams  in  Paris  as  likely 
to  endanger  the  good  relations  of  the  countries,  and  prejudice  loan ;  finan- 
cial difidculties;  difficulties  as  to  salaries  and  contingent  expenses;  wron"-  of 
refusal  to  pay  taxes;  all  property  is  subject  to  the  state;  La  Fayette's  con 
tinned  good  offices  and  influence;  regrets  Morrivs'  retirement;  proposed 
French  loan  ;  arrangement  as  to  forwarding  tobacco,  Dec.  25,  1783. 

From  Morris,  Dec.  25,  1783, 

(See  Morris  to  FranUin,  same  date.) 

To  Mifflin.    Asking  for  recall,  and  also  for  position  for  his  grandson,  Dec.  26, 1783. 

To  Congress.   Recommends  Hodgson  as  consul  at  London,  Dec.  26,  1783. 

To  Hartley.    As  to  hereditary  systems  of  government,  Jan.  7,  1784. 

From  Morris,  Feb.  12,  1784. 
(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Laurens.  Bad  effect  of  sinecures  ;  every  place  of  honor  should  be  a  place  of 
burden,  Feb.  12,  1784. 

From  Morris,  Feb.  13,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Strahan.  English  criticisms  on  America,  and  American  on  England,  Feb.  16, 
1784. 

From  Carmichael,  Feb.  27,  1784. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

From  Hartley,  Mar.  2,  1784. 

(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date. ) 

To  Thomson.  Explaining  delay  in  ratification ;  pressure  of  persons  proposing  to 
emigrate  to  America,  Mar.  9,  1784. 

To  Congress.    As  to  ratification  ;  British  proclamation  of  trade.  May  12,  1784. 

To  Thomson.  Treaty  ratified;  future  greatness  of  America  depends  on  union  and 
economy  and  honor  in  paying  debts;  is  waiting  for  an  answer  from  Congress 
for  his  request  for  release  and  for  employment  of  his  grandson.  May  13, 1784. 

From  Hartley,  June  1, 1784. 
(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 

To  Hartley.     Answering  the  latter's  criticism  on  form  of  ratification,  June  2, 1784. 

To  Congress.  As  to  these  criticisms;  his  malady  prevents  him  from  driving,  but 
his  grandson  goes  on  court  days  to  Versailles  in  his  place ;  continued  friend- 
liness of  France,  June  16, 1784. 

To  Argenteau.     As  to  treaty  with  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  July  30, 1784. 

From  Argenteau,  July  30, 1784. 

(See  Franklin  to  Argenteau,  same  date. ) 


122  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Fkanklin,  B.— Continued. 

From  Vergennes,  Aug.  27, 1784. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Vergennes.     By  resolution  of  Congress  "it  will  be  our  constant  care  to  place 
no  people  on  more  advantageous  ground  than  tlie  subjects  of"  France,  Sept. 
3,  1784. 
From  Jrgenteau,  Sept.  8, 1784. 

(See  Argenteau  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes.     "This  declaration  has  been  very  agreeable  to  the  King,"  Sept. 

9,  1784. 
From  Morris,  Sept.  30, 1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Thomson.     Propositions  for  treating  have  been  made,  in  conformity  with  in- 
structions, to  all  the  powers  of  Europe,  Oct.  16, 17,  Nov.  11, 1784. 
From  Vergennes,  October  30, 1784. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
Franklin,  W.     Notice  of.     (See  Introduction,  $  127,  and  see  Franklin  to  Priestley,  Jan. 

1, 1779. 
Franklin,  W.  T.     His  grandfather  asks  for  diplomatic  employment  for.     Franklin  to 
Congress,  Mar.  13, 1781.     See  further,  B.  Franklin. 
Secretary  to  Dr.  Franklin.     Claims  of,  Sept.  3, 1782. 
Appointed  secretary  to  the  peace  commission,  Oct.  1,1782. 

His  grandfather  asks  for  his  continuance  in  diplomatic  service,  Dec.  26, 1783.     See 
Franklin,  B.) 
Frederick  the  Great — 

Position  as  to  Revolution.     (See  Introduction,  ^  90.) 

Views  on  stealiug  of  A.  Lee's  papers.    Frederick  to  Maltzam,  June  30,  1777.     (See 

lutroductioD,  vH  144,  193. 
His  good  wishes  for  America,  and  offers  to  follow  France  in  recognition  of  Amer- 
ica.    Schidenherfi  to  A.  Lee,  Jan.  16,  1778.     (But  see  Introduction,  §  90.) 
Free  ports.     Orient,  Bayonne,  Dunkirk,  and  Marseilles  constituted,  for  American 

vessels.     Colonne  to  La  Fayette,  Jan.  5,  1784. 
''Free  ships  make  frke  goods" — 

Rule  adopted  by  Franklin  in  instructions  to  cruisers.  May  30,  1780.     But  rule  re- 
jected in  case  of  the  Flora.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  June  18,  1780. 
Prevaleuce  of  maxim.     Franklin  to  Morris,  June  3,  1780. 
Action  of  Cougiess  as  to.     Livingston  to  Deane,  Oct.  22,  1781. 
Proposal  for  general  adoption  of  rule.     Adams^  journal,  Dec.  9,  1782. 
Policy  of  maxim.     Livingslon  to  Congress,  June  3,  1783. 
French  alliance.     (See  France.) 

French  officers.     (See  Officers  to  France,  and  see  Introduction,  $  25,  78.) 
Frey.     Introduction  of,  by  Franklin  to  Wasliington,  Juue  13,  1777. 
4P     "Friend  in  England."    From  Franklin,  Oct.  3,  1775. 
(See  Franklin  to  Friend  in  England,  same  date.) 
Friesland.     Resolves  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of  America.     Adams  to  Vau- 

guyon.  Mar.  1,  1787. 
Frigates.     (See  Ships.) 
Gage,  General — 

His  desertion  of  loyalists  in  Boston.     Introduction,  §  24.  ' 
Treacherous  conduct  of.     Franklin  to  Priestley,  June  7,  1775. 
Gallitzen — 

Memorial  given  by.     Adams  to  Congress,  Apr.  10,  1780. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  8,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Gallitzen,  same  date.) 
Galloway — 

Pamphlet  of,  criticised.     Adams  to  Congress,  June  16,  1780. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  123 

Galloway— Continued. 

Was  Ji  irieud  of  Franklin,  holding  some  of  his  papers  in  deposit,  which  Franklin, 
on  Galloway's  change  of  position,  seeks  to  reclaim.     Franklin  to  Baclie,  Sept. 
13,  1781. 
Galvez.     From  Jay,  Jan.  27,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Galvez,  same  date.) 
Gakdoqui — 

Agent  to  send  supplies  from  Spain.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Mar.  18,  1777. 

Banking  operations  of,  in  aid  of  America.     Introduction,  ^  87. 

Business  relations  of,  to  the  United  States.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Mar.  18,  Apr. 

2,  1777. 
Remittances  to  A.  Lee,  Apr.  28,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  May  8,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Aug.  18,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Sept.  25,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  same  date.) 
Consignments  by.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Oct.  7,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  Nov.  15,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui  <ji'-  Sons,  same  date.) 
Accounts  of  goods  furnished.     Gardoqui  to  A.  Lee,  Apr.  1,  1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  Aug.  27,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Sept.  1,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Oct.  6,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  same  date.) 
To  d.  Lee,  Dec.  4,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  same  date.) 
His  position  in  Spain.     Carmiokael  to  Congress,  Aug.  22,  1780. 
Appointed  to  succeed  Miralles.     Carmichael  to  Congress,  Sept.  19,  1780. 
Conference  with  Jay.     Jag  to  Congress,  Nov.  G,  1780. 
Detained  in  Spain.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Nov.  28,  1780. 
Will  embark  soon.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  29,  1781. 
Position  of,  in  S[)ain.     Carmichael  to  Livingston,  Jan.  18,  1782, 
Appointed  Spanish  minister  at  the  United  States.     Florida  Blanca  to  Congress, 
Oct.  8,  1784;  King  of  Spain  to  Congress,  Sept.  25,  1784. 
Garth,  Charles,  absent  and  does  not  present  petition  of  Congress  to  King.     Frank- 

lin  to  Thomson,  Feb.  5,  1775. 
Gates — 

Position  of,  as  to  Washington.     Introduction,  ^  11. 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  28,  1770. 

(See  Franklin  to  Gates,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  2,  1779. 
(See  Franklin  to  Gatts,  same  date.) 
Generalissimo.     Suggestion  of  Broglie  as.     Introduction,  ^  ■^  77,  78. 
Genet — 

To  Adams.     Addresses  friendly  letter,  Oct.  24,  1778  ''with  notice  of). 
From  Adams,  Feb.  18,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Genet,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Unites  in  discrediting  false  reports  lately  started  in  England,  Feb. 

20,  1780. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  24,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Genet,  same  date.) 


124  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Genet — Continued. 

From  Adams,  Apr.  29,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Genet,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  3,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Genet,  same  date.)  w 
From  Adams,  May  9,  1780. 

{Hee  Adams  to  Genet,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  15,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Genet,  same  date.) 
From  Adams.  May  17,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Genet,  same  date.) 
George  III — 

His  attitude  as  to  the  revolution.     Introduction,  «J  27. 
Regards  Franklin  as  a  leading  power.     Introduction,  ^S 123. 
Ilis  character  an  obstacle  to  peace.     Adams  to  Congress,  June  2,  1780. 
Answer  of,  to  jjropositions  of  mediating  courts,  given    under  Franklin  to  Con- 
gress, Mar.  12,  1781. 
Duplicity  and  rancor  of.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  June  29,  1783, 
Warrant  for  negotiating  peace,  July  25,  1782. 
Second  peace  commission  to  Oswald,  Sept.  21,  1782. 
Proclamation  of  cessation  of  arms,  Feb.  14,  1783.     Fitsherhert  to  Commissioners^ 

Feb.  18,  1783. 
Ratification  of  provisional  articles,  Aug.  6,  1783. 
Gerard — 

Notice  of.     Introduction,  ^  83. 

His  relations  to  A.  Lee.     IMd.,  §  146. 

From  Franklin  et  al.  to,  Jan.  14,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  etal.  (or  Commissioners)  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Aug.  1, 1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Feb.  1,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  and  Deane  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  24,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  25,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
Announcement  by  Louis  XVI  of  appointment  of,  as  minister  and  consul-general 

to  the  United  States.     Louis  XVL  to  Congress,  Mar.  28,  1778. 
From  Vergennes,  Mar.  29,  1778. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
Introduced  to  Laurens.    Franklin  to  Laurens,  Mur.^l,  1778.     (See  Introduction, 

?  83.) 
Has  letters  to  Philadelphia  from  A.  Lee.     Gerard  to  Lee,  Apr.  1,  1778. 
Circumstances  of  his  appointment  as  minister  to  the  United  States.     Franklin  to 

A.  Lee,  Apr.  4,  1778. 
Arrival  of.     Deane  to  Congress,  July  8,  1778. 
Congress  takes  measures  to  receive,  July  11,  1778. 

Informs  Congress  of  privileges  given  in  France  to  American  ships,  July  14,  1778. 
Asks  Congress  to  take  charge  of  prisoners,  July  16,  1778. 
Ceremonies  of  reception  of.     Congress,  July  20,  28,  1778. 
Conferences  with.     Note  to  instructions  to  Franklin  of  Oct.  20,  1778. 
To  Commissioners.     Obtains  provisions  for  France,  Nov.  9,  1778. 
To  Congress.     As  to  authorization  of  documents,  Dec.  2,  1778. 
To  Congress,     As  to  claim  of  Hortalez  &  Co.,  Dec.  4, 1778. 
To  Congress.     Suggests  rule  as  to  privateers,  Dec.  6,  1778. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  125 

Gehahi) — Con  tinned. 

To  Coufjrcss.     Ur<?Gs  fidelity  to  treaty  of  1778,  Dec.  7,  1778. 

To  Congress.     RiHpiost  for  provisions.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Dec.  14,  1778. 

To  Congress.     Declares  that  Beanmarcbais'  supplies  were  not  gratuities,  Jan.  4, 

1779. 
To  Congress.     Denies  Paine's  statement  tbat  supplies  were  sent  by  France  as  a 

present,  Jan.  5,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Repeats  said  denial  and  calls  for  action,  Jan.  10,  1779. 
Congress  repudiates  Paine's  statement,  Jan.  14,  1779. 

To  Congress.     Advises  of  action  of  Duportail  and  associates,  Jan.  15,  1779. 
From  Duportail,  La  Radiere,  and  Laiimoy,  Jan.  15,  1779. 

(See  Deportail,  et  al.,  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Asks  for  informatiou  as  to  supply  of  fleet,  Feb.  3,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Announces  Spain's  offer  of  mediation.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Feb.  9, 

1779. 
To  Congress.     Announces  that  France  has  made  a  grant  of  750,000  livres,  and  that 

the  Beaumarcbais'  contract  was  a  business  affair,  Feb.  9,  1779. 
To  Congre'iS.     Advises  appointment  of  special  peace  minister,  Feb.  15,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Asks  as  to  rate  of  exchange,  Mar.  14,  1779. 
Addresses  Congress  as  to  maintenance  of  alliance,  Mar.  17, 1779. 
To  Congress.     Announces  his  proposed  doijarfuro.  Mar.  31,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Sends  Europeaa  information,  A)>r.  6,  1779. 

To  Congress.     Complaining  of  seizure  of  Spanish  vessels,  Apr.  24,  May  19,  1779. 
Favorable  estimate  of,  by  Jay.     Jay  to  Washington,  Apr.  2G,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Announces  fresh  aid  from  France,  May  6,  1779. 
To  Congress.     As  to  movements  of  D'Estaing,  May  9,  1779. 
Attacked  May  22,  1779,  by  A.  Lee.     Introduction,  §  146. 
To  Congress.     Urges  fidelity  to  treaty  obligations,  May  23,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Barbarous  treatment  by  enemy  of  Frenchmen  in  Virginia,  May  25, 

1779. 
To  Congress.     Importance  of  alliance  of  Snain,  May  27,  1779. 
To  Congress.     As  to  immunities  of  flags,  June  21,  1779. 
From  Vergennes,  June  29,  1779. 

(See  Gerard  to  Vergennes,  under  date  Sept.  1,  1779. 
To  Congress.     As  to  ship  Defence,  July  5,  26,  1779. 
To  Congress.     As  to  provisions  for  France,  July  5,  1779. 
Conference  of  Congress  with,  July  10,  1779. 

Proposition  as  to  prisoners;  conference  with  Congress,  July  10,  1779. 
I         Views  of,  as  to  British  recognition  of  independence,  July  10,  1779. 
To  Holker,  July  26,  28,  July  29,  1779. 
T<j  Congress.     As  to  provisions,  July  26,  1779. 
From  De  Pouille,  July  11,  1779. 

(See  De  Bonille  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
From  Holker,  July  29,  1779. 

(See  Holker  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
From  Reed,  July  31,  1779. 

(See  Reed  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Announces  Spanish  alliance.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Sept.  7,  1879. 
Ceremonial  of  taking  leave,  Sept.  15,  1779. 
Reply  of  Congress  to,  Sept.  25,  1779. 
From  Congress,  Sept.  25,  1779. 

(See  Congress  to  Gerard,  same  date.) 
Challenged  by  A.  Lee,  May  11,  1780.     Introduction,  ^  146. 
Germain,  Lord  G.     Character  of    See  Introduction,  ^  27 ;  A.  Lee  to  Dumas,  Sept.  23, 
1776 


126  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Germain,  Lord  G. — Continued. 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  7,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Germain,  same  date.) 
His  position  in  May,  1777. 
Carmichael  to  Dumas,  May  9, 1777. 

Comments  on  speech  of.  Adams  to  Congress,  June  2,  1780. 
German  Empire.  Policy  of,  to  America.  Introduction,  '^S  96, 
German  troops.     Barbarous  hiring  of.     Franklin  to    Winthrop,  May  1,  1777. 

Employment  of,  by  British.     A.Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  11,  1779. 
Germany.     British  enlistments  in.      Commissioners  to  Committee,  Jan.  17,  1777. 
Political  position  of.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  July  29,  1777.     Introduction,  ^  96. 
Proper  form  of  addressing  Emperor  of.      TV.  Lee  to  Congress,  Jan.  22,  1778. 
Offers  with  Russia  to  mediate.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  29,  1781 ;  Carmi- 
chael to  Committee,  Feb.  22,  1781. 
Accession  of  to  armed  neutrality.     Adams  to  Congress,  Dec.  29,  1781, 
Emperor  of.     Treaty  with.     Franklin  to  Aryenteaii,  July  30,  1784. 
Argenteau  to  Franklin,  Sept.  28,  1784. 
Gerry— 

From  Adams,  Dec.  .5, 1778  (with  notice). 
(See  Adams  to  Gerry,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Affairs  in  the  United  States,  May  5,  1780. 
From  Adams,  Aug.  5, 1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Gerry,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Aug.  26,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Gerry,  same  date. 
From  Adams,  Sept.  9, 1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Gerry,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  3, 1783. 
(See  Adams  to  Gerry,  same  date.) 
Gibraltar.     British  retention  of.     Introduction,  \S  86. 

Franklin  to  Jay,  Oct.  16,  1781  ;  Franklin  to  Jackson,  same  date. 
Siege  of.     Carmichael  to  Livingston,  Sept.  29,  1782. 
Gillon,  Captain — 

Misconduct  of.     Franklin  to  J/orrt.s,  Sept.  12,  1781;  Franklin  to  Congress,  Nov.  5, 
1781;  Franklin  to  Adams,  Nov,  7,  1781;  Franklin  to  Laurens,  Nov.  8,   1781; 
Franklin  to  Adams,   Nov.  26,  1781 ;  Livingston  to  Carmichael,   Dec.  20,1781; 
Franklin  to  Morris,  Mar.  4,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  July  5,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Gillon,  same  date.) 
Complaints  against,  by  Spain.     Ja//  to  Livingston,  Apr.  28,  1782. 
(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  May  19,  1783.) 
Gloucester,  Duke  of,  friendly  to  America.     Introduction,  ^  27. 
Gouverneur,  Isaac.     Ai-rest  of,  at  Eustatia.     Lovell  to  Franklin,  May  9,  1781. 
GOURION — 

Contract  with,  Feb.  13,  1777. 

Letter  commending.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Nov.  24,  1781. 
Governor  of  Connecticut — 
From  Morris,  Nov.  20,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Connecticut,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  June  14,  1782.  ^ 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Connecticut,  same  date.) 
Governor  of  Corunna.     From  Adams,  Dec.  18,  1779. 
(See  Adams  to  Governor  of  Corunna,  same  date.) 
Governor  of  Cuba — 

From  Morris,  Nov.  2,  1780. 

(See  MoiTis  to  Governor  of  Cuba,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  127 

Governor  of  Cuba — Continued. 
From  Morris,  July  17,  1781. 
(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Havana,  same  date.) 
Governor  of  Maryland— 
From  Morris,  Aug.  28, 1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Maryland,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Apr.  30,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Maryland,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  9,  178:^. 

^^See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Maryland,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  29,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Maryland,  same  date.) 
Governors  of  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia.    From  Morris, 
Dec.  19,  1781. 
(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  North  Carolina,  Soidh  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  aamo 
date. ) 
Governor  of  North  Carolina.     From  Morris,  Oct.  7,  1782. 
(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  North  Carolina,  same  date.) 
Governors  of  New  Jersey  and  Delaware.    From  Morris,  Aug.  22, 1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  New  Jersey  and  Delaware,  same  date.) 
Governor  of  New  York.    From  Morris,  Dec.  11,  1781. 
(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  New  Yorlc,  same  date.) 
Governor  of  Rhode  Island— 
From  Morrris,  Jan.  14,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Rhode  Island,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  June  26,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Rhode  Island,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Aug.  2,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Rhode  Island,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  24,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Rhode  Island,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  June  21, 1784. 
(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Rhode  Island,  same  date.) 
Governor  of  St.  Christopher.    From  Luzerne,  Nov.  8,  1782. 
(See  Luzerne  to  Governor  of  St.  Christopher,  same  date.) 
Governor  of  Virginia— 

From  Morris,  Aug.  23,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Virginia,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  16,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Virginia,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Apr.  27,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governor  of  Virginia,  same  date.) 
Governors  of  the  States — 

From  Morris,  July  25,  1781. 
(See  Morris  to  Gavtr nor s  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  27,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Aug.  4,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.  ) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  4, 1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Moms,  Oct.  19,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  12,  1781. 
(See  Livingston  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.  > 


128  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Governors  of  the  States — Continued. 
From  Morris,  Nov.  17,  1781, 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Jan.  3,  1782. 

(^QG  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Jan.  8, 1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Feb.  15, 1782. 

(See  Aformto  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  18,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  19,  1782. 

{^eei  Livingston  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Mar.  9,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Apr.  15,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  2,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  9,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  J^ay  16,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  .Sept.  12, 1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  15,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date. 
From  M)/v/.s,  Oct.  21,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  itsxme  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  23,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  18,  1783. 

(See  TAvingston  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Apr.  7,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Apr.  12,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Govn'nors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  12,  1783. 

(Sec  Mortis  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  June  5,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  11,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
From  .l/orr/,s,  July  28,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  same  date.) 
GOY,  Captain.     Recommendation  of.     Deane  to  Committee,  Feb.  27,  1777. 
Grand— 

Correspondence  with,  as  to  "lost  million."    Introduction,  ^>i  65,  66. 

Offers  to  discount  bills  drawn  by  Congress.     Carniicha'il  to  Committee,  Nov.  2,  1776. 

Selected  as  banker  at  Amsterdam.     .1.  iee  to  Grimaldi,  Mar.  5,  1777. 

From  Vergennes,  Aug.  21,  1777. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  3,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin.     As  to  neutral  duties  and  Ca[)tuin  Cunningham,  Oct.  14,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Grand,  mmio  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX,  129 

Grand — Contiinicd. 

PYoui  Franklin,  Nov.  3,  1778. 

(See  Fninklin  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
From  Morria,  Dec.  3,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
From  Morri.s,  Mar.  9,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  17,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  18,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Grand^  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  5,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
Accoauts  of.     Morris  to  Franklin,  Sept.  30,  1782. 
From  Morris,  Jan.  13,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
His  history.     Note  to.     Franklin  to  Grand,  Oct.  14, 1778. 
To  Coniniis^ioners  at  Paris.     Account  of  fuuds,  iNIay  10,  1783. 
From  Adams,  Franklin  and  J^r/^,  May  23,  1783. 

(See  Adams  et  al.  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Feb.  12,  1784. 

(See  Morris  to  Grand,  same  date.) 
Grantham.     From  Franklin,  Sept.  11,  1782. 

(Sec  Franklin  to  Grantham,  same  date.) 
Gratuities,     Freucli,  iu  1777.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12,  1777.     See  Intro- 
duction, ^ij*  '^7,  56,  ^/Z"". 
As  presents  iu  foreigu  courts.     Livingston  to  Dana,  May  1,  1783. 
Grkat  Britain.     (See  Britain.) 
Greene — 

From  J/oms,  Oct.  3,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Oct.  20,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Nov.  2,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Restoration  of  authority  in  the  South,  Dec.  13,  1781. 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  31,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Apr.  24,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  17,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Announces  evacuation  of  Charleston,  Dec.  19,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  4,  1783. 

(See  Livings'on  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  14,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  12,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Mar.  14,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Apr.  12,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  May  16,  1783. 
(See  Morris  to  Greene,  same  date,) 

0  wu 


130  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Grenville,  George.     Franklin's   coufereuce  with,  as  to  stamp  act,     Franklin  to 

Hartley,  Mar.  12,  1778. 
Grenville,  T. — 

From  Fox,  May  21,  1782. 

(See  Fox  to  Grenville,  same  date.) 
From  Sheridan,  May  21,  1782. 

(See  Sheridan  to  Grenville,  same  date.) 
From  Sheridan,  May  26,  1782. 

(See  Sheridan  to  Grenville,  same  date. ) 
From  Franklin,  May  31,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Grenville,  same  date,  iu  Franklin's  Journal,  of  July  1,  1782.) 
From  Fox,  May  3,  1782. 

(See  Fox  to  Grenville,  same  date.) 
To  i^oa?.     Peace  negotiations,  Jane  4,  16,  21,  1782. 
From  Fox,  Juno  10,  1782. 

(See  Fox  to  Grenville,  same  date.) 
Correspondence  with,  in  peace  negotiations.     (See  Franklin's  journal,  under  date 
of  July  1,  1782.) 
Greyhound.     Seizure  of.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Dec.  6,  1779. 
Griffin.     From  Franklin,  Mar.  16,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Griffin,  same  date.) 
Grimaldi — 

Suggestion  that  A.  Lee  should  meet  him  at  Burgos.     Gardoqui  to  A.  Lee,  Feb.  17, 

1777. 
A.  Lee's  memorial  to,  Mar.  5,  1777. 
Guaranty  of  payment  by  Congress  of  supplies,  Jan.  5,  1777. 

GUIZOT — 

View  of  Washington's  military  genius.     Introductioji,  ^  12. 
View  of  justice  of  American  Revolution.     Ibid.,  '^  20. 
View  of  as  to  French  alliance  v/itli  America,     Ibid.,  ^  36. 
Opinion  of  Beaumarchais.     Ibid.,  *)  57. 
Hale,  E.  E.     View  of  A.  Lee's  relations  to  Franklin.     Ibid.,  ^  145. 
Hamburg.     Friendly  address  to  the  United  States,  Mar.  29,  1782. 
Hamilton — 

A  constructive  revolutionary  statesman.     Introduction,  ^^^  4,  209. 

As  to  fiiumce.     Supporting  Morris.     Ibid. 

Loyal  to  French  alliance.     I  bid. 

Vigorous  support  of  the  Army.     Ibid. 

Disapproves  of  withholding  information  from  French  Government.     Ibid. 

His  dependence  on  France  for  aid.     Ibid. 

Disapproves  of  Jay's  course  on  the  peace  negotiations.     IMd. 

Objects  to  continuing  Dana  and  any  unreccived  envoys.     Ibid. 

Opinion  of  Adams.     Ibid.,  v^  4,  132. 

His  view  of  the  opposition  to  Washington  by  J.  Adams.     Ibid.,  ^  11. 

His  estimate  of  Morris.     Ibid.,  <}  iS'.i. 

Viom  Morris,  May  26,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Hamilton,  sanie  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  2,  1782. 

(Sec  Morris  to  Hamilton,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Aug.  28,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Hamilton,  same  date. ) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  5,  1782. 

(Sec  Morris  to  Hamilton,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Feb.  5,  1783. 

(Sec  La  Fnyet^e  to  Haw  it  ion,  same  d£^to,j 


PRELIMINARY    INDP^X.  131 

Ha:milton— Coil  til)  ucfl. 

Views  of,  as  to  course  of  negotiators  in  Paris  in  separating  from  France  (given  in 

Madison'' 8  report  nf  debates,  under  date  of  Mar.  18,  ID,  178;J.) 
From  Morris,  A])r.  16,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Ha  milt  on,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Sept.  28,  1783. 
(See  Jaif  to  HamiJton,  same  date.) 
Hammond,  Captain.     Instructions.     From  Committee,  Jan.  2,  1777. 

(See  Committee  to  Hammond,  sanu;  date.) 
Hampden,  a  type  of  American  constructive  revolutionists.    Introduction,  ^\  6. 
Hancock — 

From  Franklin,  Dec.  8,  1776  (with  notice). 

(See  Franklin  to  Hancock,  same  date.) 
From  Deane,  Sept.  14,  1778. 
(See  Deane  to  Hancock,  same  date.) 
Harris,  Sir  J. — 

Attempts  to  bribe  Catliarine  II,  to  act  against  America.     Introduction,  ^S  7. 
Position  as  to  Russian  mediation.     Ibid.,  v^  7,  99. 
Account  of  Sayre's  exploits  at  St.  Petersburg.     Ibid.,  ^  193. 
Harrison,  B. — 

Chosen  member  of  Committee  of  Correspondence.     Secret  Journals  of  Congress, 

Nov.  20,  1775.     (For  his  biography,  see  note  to  same.) 
Et  al.     Instructions  to  commissioners  at  Paris  ;  narrating  progress  of  war,  Dec. 
21,  1776. 
Harrison,  R. — 

From  Livingston,  May  21,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Harrison,  same  date.) 
Question  of  his  appointment  as  consul.     Livingston  to  Congress,  Oct  29,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  5,  17o2. 
(See  Livingston  to  Harrison,  same  date.) 
Hartlp:  y — 

Political  services  of.     Introduction,  v^  199. 

Friendly  letters  to,  from  Franklin,  explaining  the  rights  of  America,  Oct.  14,  1777; 

Feb.  12,  26,  Mar.  12,  1778. 
To  Franklin.     Advising  him  of  his  danger,  with  Franklin's  reply,  Apr.  23,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
Character  of,  given  by  Franklin  to  Vergenues,  Apr.  24,  with  Vergennes'  reply  to 
A.  Lee  of  Apr.  24,  and  to  Franklin,  Apr.  25,  1778. 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Vergennes,  Apr.  24,  1778.)^ 
From  Franklin.    Appealed  to  in  behalf  of  American  prisoners  in  England,  Oct. 

14,  1777. 
From  Franklin,  May  25,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin.     As  to  exchange  of  prisoners,  June  16,  1778, 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  13,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  3,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  14,  1778. 
m  (See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 

From  Franklin,  Oct.  20,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin.    France  must  be  included  in  the  peace,  and  independence  acknowl- 
edged, Oct.  26,  1778. 
(See  franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.^ 


132  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Hartley— Couliuued. 

From  Franklin,  Nov.  29,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jau.  2;"),  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartleij,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin.     Indicates  French  alliance  to,  Feb.  3,  1779. 

(See  F'ranklin  to  Hartlcij,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  22,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin.     Insisting  on  iudependence  as  essential  to  peace,  Mar.  21,  May  4, 

1779. 
To  Franklin.     Suggestions  as  to  truce,  Apr.  22,  177l)  ;  answered  May  4,  1779. 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  2,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
Speech  of,  noticed.     Adams  to  Congress,  July  7,  1780. 
To   Franklin.     Communicates   bill  for  conciliation  as  rejected  by  tlie  House  of 

Commons,  Jnly  17,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  June  30,  1781. 

(See  F^ranklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec,  15,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Desire  for  peace  ;  suggestions  as  to  ;  conference  with  Lord  North, 

Jan.  2,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  15,  1782. 

(See  F'ranklin  to  Hartley,  same  date. ) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  terms  of  i)eace,  Jau.  24,  Feb.  1,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Fob.  16,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  prospects  of  peace,  Feb.  28,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     Discussing  question  of  peace,  March  11, 12,  1782. 
Introduces  Digges.     Hartley  to  Franklin,  Mar.  11,21,  1782. 
From  Franklin.     Proposing  release'of  xmsoners,  Apr.  5,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  April  12,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Suggestions  as  to  peace,  May  1,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     Importance  of  peace,  May  25,  1782. 

In  peace  negotiations.     (See  Franklin'' 8  journal,  under  date  of  July  1,  1782.) 
From  Franklin,  July  10,  1782. 

(See  F'ranklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Prospects  of  peace,  July  26,  1782. 
To  F'rankUn,     As  to  peace,  Aug.  16,  Oct.  4,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  17,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  peace,  Oct.  4,  1782. 

To  Franklin.     Conciliatory  commercial  propositions.  Mar.  12,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     Giving  draft  of  supplemental  treaty,  Mar.  31,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     Proposals  to,  as  to  delinitive  treaty,  Apr.  29^  1783. 
From  Franklin.     As  to  privateericg,  May  8,  1783. 
Commission  of,  for  definitive  peace    May  19,  1783. 

Articles  for  definitive  treaty  proposed  to  American  commissioners,  May  21,  1783  ; 
agreement  proposed  by  him,  June  1, 1783 ;  memorial  by,  to  commissioners,  June 
1,  1783;  proposed  agreement  by  Jay,  June  1,  1783;  proposed  agreement  by 
Hartley,  June  1,  1783  ;  proposed  agreement  by  Adams,  June  1,  1783. 
(See  Definitive  treaty.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  133 

HARTLEY^Contiiined. 

From  Commissioners,  June  1,  1783. 

(See  CommiiiHioitcrs  to  Rartley,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jmj,  July  1,  1783. 

(See  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jay  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.    As  to  signature  of  treaty,  Aug.  29,  1783  ;  reply  of  Adams,  Frank- 
lin, and  Jay,  Aug.  30,  1783;  to   Commissioners,  congratulating  on    signature, 
Sept.  4,  1783  ;  commendation  of.     Franklin  to  Fox,  Sept.  5,  1783. 
From  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jay,  Sept.  5,  1783. 

(See  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jay  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  G,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Franklin,  and  J<j//,  Sept.  7,  1783. 

(See  Adams,  Franklin,  and  ./(^//  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  navigation  act  and  West  India  trade,  Sept.  24,  1783. 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  IG,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  22,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  7,  1784. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  same  date.) 
Haktwell's  case.     (See  Carmiehael  to  Franklin,  Feb.  27,  1784.) 
Havana.     Outrages  at.     (See  Carmiehael  to  Franklin,  Feb.  27,  1784. 

(See  Gorernor  of  Cuha.) 
Hendricks,  Captain,  re-imbursed  by  France  for  his  losses.     Commissioners  to  Com- 
mittee. 
Henry.     From  Franklin,  Feb.  26,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Henry,  same  date.) 
Hesse.     Treaties  by  which  the  English  are  to  be  furnished  with  troops  by  the  Land- 
grave of.     A.Lee  to  Mrs.  Bache,M.siv.  19,  177(!. 
Hessians — 

Employment  of,  denounced.     Introduction,  ^22. 
Numbers  brought  to  America.     Ibid.,  $  8. 
Sailed.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  June  3,  1776. 

Suggestions  as  to  inducements  to  desert.     Franklin  to  Gates,  Aug.  2'^,  1776. 
Protest  against  employment  of.     F'ranklin  to  Winlhrop,  May  1,  1777. 
FTiGGiNSON.     Letters  attacking  Morris.     Introduction,  ^S  183. 
Hill,  Captain.     Complaints  against.     Jay  to  Livingston,  Apr.  28,  1782. 
lIiNMAN,  Captain — 

From  Commissioners,  Nov.  25,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  and  Deane  to  Captain  Thompson  and  Captain  Hinman,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners.     Instructions  to,  by,  Nov.  25,  1777. 
Hobson.     Seizure  of  prizes  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb.  16,  1778. 
Hodge,  W.,  as  business  agent,  (afterwards  captain)  sent  to  Europe.     Committee  to 
Deane,  Oct.  2,  1776. 
Employment  of,  by  commissioners,  Feb.  6,  1777. 
Arrest  of,  in  Paris.     Commissioners  to  Vergenncs,  Aug.  12,  1777. 

(See  Deane  to  Morris,  Aug.  23,  1777.) 
Release  from  imprisonment.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Oct.  7,  1777, 
Narrative  of  operations  of,     Deane  to  Congress,  Oct.  12,  1778. 
Hodgson— 

From  Franklin,  Jan.  20,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hodgson,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  26,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hodgson,  same  date.) 


134  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Hodgson — Continued. 

From  Franklin,  Apr.  11,  1780. 

(See  FranJdin  to  Hodgson,  same  date. 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  1,  1781. 

(See  FranTclin  to  Hodf/son,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  19,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hodgson,  same  date.) 
Recommended  as  consul  at  London.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Dec.  26, 1783. 

HOLKER — 

Contract  with,  for  supplies,  Aug.  G,  1777. 

Arrival  of,  in  Philadelphia.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  June  21,  1778. 

HOLKER— 

Authority  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Sept.  17,  1778. 
References  to.     Deane  to  Congress,  Oct.  12,  1778. 
From  Deane,  as  to  accounts,  April  26,  1779. 

(See  Deane  to  Holker,  same  date. ) 
French  consul.     Proceedings  as  to,     Gerard  to  Congress,  July  26,  Aug.  5, 1779. 
Entitled  to  protection.     Gerard  to  Congress,  July  28,  1779. 
Information  as  to  proceedings  against,  July  29,  1779. 
Further  documents  as  to,  July  30,  1779.     (See  Gerard.) 
From  Smith,  January  7,  17S0.     Difficulties  of  ohcaining  supplies. 

(See  Smith  to  Holker,  same  date.) 
Conmiissioned  as  French  consul-general  for  the  Middle  States,  Sept.  10,  1781. 
Holland.     (See  Netherlands.) 

HOLTZENDORFF — 

Introduction  of.     Deane  to  Committee,  Fob.  G,  1777. 
Difficulties  as  to.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Dec.  8,  1779. 
Claim  of.     Luzerne  to  Livingston,  May  25,  1782. 
Hopkins.     His  betrayal  of  secrets.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  13,  177G. 
"HORTALEZ  &  Co."— 

Position  of.     Introduction,  §  Gl. 

To  Mary  Johnston  (A.  Lee),  May  23,  1776. 

Will  furnish  supplies  to  the  Americans.     Beaumarchais  to  A.  Lee,  June  26, 1776. 

Advantages  to  the  Americans  from  dealing  with.     Beaumarchais  to  Deane,  July  18, 

1776. 
Agreement  for  furnishing  armed  vessels.     Articles  for  hiring  armed  vessels,  etc., 

Oct.  15,  1776. 
Response  of  foreign  committee  to  Arthur  Lee's  statement  in  respect  to.     Com- 

mittee  to  A.  Lee,  May  14,  1776,  May  15,  1778. 
Arthur  Lee's  reference  to,  Jan.  3,  1777. 
Consignment  asked  for.     Deane  to  Committee,  Sept.  3, 1777. 
Accounts  with.     Ibid.,  Sept.  16,  1777. 

Resolution  of  Congress  as  to  settlement  with,  Apr.  13,  1778. 
Settlement  with.     Commissioners  to  Beaumarchais,  Sept.  10,  1778;  Commissioners  to 

Vergennes,  Sept.  10,  1778. 
Plan  for  future  settlement  with  Congress,  Dec.  2,  lllS. 
Not  guarantied  by  France.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Feb.  9,  1779. 
(See  more  fully  Beaumarchais ;  and  also  Introduction,  ^  56^. 
Hostilities — 

Cessation  of,  declaration  of,  Jan.  20,  1783;  Franklin  to  Livingston,  Jan.  21,  1783; 

Adams  to  Livingston,  Jan.  23,  1783. 
Proclamations  of,  Feb.  14,  20,  1783. 
Final  cessation  of.     Carleton  to  Livingston,  Apr.  6,  1783;  Digh-rj  to  Livingston,  Apr. 

6,  1783 ;  Livingston  to  Congress,  Apr.  10,  1783. 


PRKLIMINARY    INDEX.  185 

Howe,  Loud — 

lutervicws  with  Franklin  upon  American  affairs  and  of  plans  of  reconciliation. 
Franklin's  narrative  of  negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775  (with  notices). 
To  Fr((}iAli)i.     Hopes  for  reconciliation,  June  20,  177(). 
From  FrnnkUn,  Jnly  20,  177G. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lord  Howe,  same  date.) 
To  FranlUn.     Is  withont  power  to  treat,  hnt  has  power  to  confer  and  negotiate, 

Ang.  10,  1770. 
Remarks  in  conference  with  Franklin,  Rutledge.  and  Adams,  Sept.  11,  1770. 
From  i'Vfi«A//»,  Sept.  8,  1770. 

(See  FranJdin  to  Lord  Howe, snuie  date.) 
Howe,  Mrs. — 

Franklin  forms  the  acquaintance  of.     Franklin's  narrative  of  the  negotiations  at  Lon- 
don, Mar.  22,  1775. 
Letter  to  Frauklin,   inclosing  a  note  of  Lord  Howe.     Franklin's  narrative  of  the 
negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Howe,  General— 

Position  of,  in  Feb.,  1777. 
Harrison  et  al.  to  Commissioners,  Feb.  2,  1777. 

W.  Lee's  account  of  position  of,  in  Feb.,  1777.      TV.  Lee  to  Dumas,  Mar.  21,  1777. 
His  desertion  of  loyalists  in  1778.     Introduction,  t^S  24. 
Howitzers,  castiug,  difticulties  of.     J.  Laurens  to  Congress,  Apr.  24,  1781. 
HuDDY,  case  of.     Livingston  to  Dana,  May  29,  1782  ;    Livingston  to  Franklin,  May  30, 
1782. 
(See  Livingston  to  Dana,  Dec.  17, 1782.) 
Huntington,  President  of  Congress — 

(See  Congress,  under  which  head  are  put  the  letters  addressed  to  him.) 
To  Adams.     Fall  of  Charleston  ;  Rochambeau  landed  on  Rhode  Island,  July  30, 

1780. 
To  Adams.     Commission  as  minister  plenipotentiary  to  Holland;  plan  of  treaty 
with  that  country  ;  resolution  upon  the  neutrality  declaration  of  Russia,  Jau. 
1,1781. 
To  Adams.    Instructing  him  not  to  communicate,  as  he  proposed,  his  peace  in- 
structions to  England,  aiul  not  to  be  influenced  as  to  such  action  by  his  views 
as  to  contingencies  of  English  politics,  Jau.  10,  1781. 
Commission  to  accede  to  mediation  and  to  treat  of  peace,  independence  being  a 
prerequisite;  alternative  powers  as  to  truce,  June  15,  19,  1781. 
HussEY,  Abb6— 

Mission  of,  to  Spain.     Jag  to  Congress,  I^ov.  6,  1780. 

Further  propositions  from  England  to  Spain  expected  through.     Carmichael  to 
Committee,  Jan.  4,  1781. 
Hutchinson,  Governor- 
Mischief  doi^e  by  him  in  England.     Introduction,  ^^  28. 
Death  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  June  17,  1780  (with  notice). 

HUTTON  — 

Success  of,  as  a  peace-maker.     Introduction,  ^^  201. 
From  Franklin.     As  to  peace,  Feb.  1,  Mar.  24,  1778. 
Reference  to,  by  Franklin  to  Hartley,  Feb.  12,  1778. 
From  Franklin,  June  23,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Hutton,  same  date.) 
Hyde,  Lord.     Interview  with  Frauklin  upon  measures  of  reconciliation.    Franktin*s 

narrative  of  negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Imperial  courts.     Their  appearance  as  mediators  of  definitive  treaty  declined  by 

Great  Britain.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Aug.  13,  1783, 
Indektedness,  foreign,  of  the  United  States,  pressure  of.     Morris  to  Congress,  Mar. 
17,  1784;  Morris  to  Conaress,  May  6,  1784. 


136  PRELIMINARY    INDEX, 

Independence— 

Essential  to  recognition.     Deane  to  Commiltee,  Ang.  18,  1776. 

Effect  of  Declaration  of,  in  Europe.     Beaiimarchais  to  Committee,  Sept.  15,  1776. 

Formal  announcement  of  Declaration  of,  expected  in  Europe.     Deane  to  Commitlee, 
Oct.  8,  1776. 

America  injured  by  delay  in  announcing.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  17,  1776. 

Necessity  of  announcing  formally.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  25,  1776. 

Delay  in  announcing,  injurious  to  America.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  6, 1776. 

Declaration  of,  presented  to  French  court.     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  '^,  1776. 

Acknowledgment  of,  by  France.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Dec.  18,  1777. 

British  recognition  of,  probabilities  as  to.     Conference  with  French  minister,  July 
10,  1779. 

Friesland  resolves  to  acknowledge  the,  of  America.     Adams  to  Vauguyon,  Mar.  1, 
1781. 

Not  real,  nuless  there  be  self-support.     Franklin  to  Morris,  Nov.  5,  1781. 

Recognition  of,  a  prerequisite  to  pence.     Jay  to  Livingston,  Nov.  17,  1782. 
Indians.     Employment  of,  denounced.     Introduction,  i^  22. 
Insolvency.     Condition  of,  in  1781-82.     (See  Franllin,  Morris.) 
Intercepted  letters — 

Taken  from  Story  by  the  British.     Dumas  to  Franklin,  Apr.  20,  1776. 

British.     Carmichael  to  Dumas,  May  9,  1777. 

Forgery  of.     (See  Forgery.) 

Of  Deane;  equivocal  character  of.     Introduction,  $  163. 
International  Law.     (See  Free  Ships,  etc.) 

Questions  of,  arising  in  the  Revolution.    Introduction,  ^^  100  jT.    (See  Diplomacy.) 
Intermediaries.    Action  as  to  peace.    Ihid  ^  197^'. 
Ireland — 

Revolt  should  be  attempted  in.     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 

Notices  as  to.     Adams  to  Congress,  May  10,  1780. 

Notices  of  political  jiosition  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  June  1, 1780. 
Islands,  West  India.   Advantages  of  their  neutralization.     Franklin  to  Oswald,  Jan. 

14,1783,     {ii&Q  West  Indies.) 
Irving,  Washington.  His  views  as  to  cabal  against  Washington.  Introduction,  ^11. 
Isle  of  France.    Importance  of  free  port  of.     Morris  to  La  Fayette,  May  19,  1784. 
Italy.     Commerce  between  America  and.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  1776. 
Izard,  R. — 

His  diplomatic  position.     Introduction,'^  178. 

His  services  after  his  return.     Ibid.,  ^  179. 

Ill  effects  of  his  diplomatic  efforts.     Ibid.,  §»v^  19,  17.'.. 

Franklin's  grounds  for  not  contiding  in.     Ibid.,  §  140. 

His  animosity  to  Franklin.     Ibid.,  §^  148,  149. 

Letter  to  Colden,  Sept.  10,  1775  (givffn  in  note  of  A.  Lee  to  Colden,  Feb.  13, 1776). 

From  Hancock.  Instructions  to,  as  minister  to-Tuscauy,  July  1,  1777. 
(See  Hancock  (or  Congress)  to  Izard,  same  date.) 

To  Committee.  Si)eaks  hopefully  of  his  Italian  mission,  and  asks  for  instructions, 
Oct.  6,  1777. 

To  Committee.     Does  not  leave  Paris,  but  confers  with  Tuscan  minister  there, 
Dec.  18,  1777. 

From  A.  Lee,  Jan.  28, 1778, 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Izard,  same  date.) 

Consulted  by  Lee  as  to  molasses  article  in  treaty  of  177S.     Izard  to  Lee,  Jan. 
28,1778. 

His  opinion  thereon  ;  his  complaints  of  neglect;  claims  to  have  a  right  to  be  con- 
sulted as  to  treaty  matters.     Izard  to  Franklin,  Jan.  28,  1778. 

Franklin's  answer  to,  Jan.  29, 1778. 

Rejoinder  and  renewal  of  complaints  of  neglect,  Jan.  30,  1778. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  137 

Izard,  R. — Coiitinncd. 

From  Committee.     Congress  relics  ou,  to  obtain  loau  in  Italy,  Feb.  5,  1776. 
Furnislicd  1,000  guineas  for  expenses  of  mission  to  Italy.     CommissionerH  to  Com- 

miltec,  Feb.  16,  1778. 
To  Laurens.     Comments  on  treaty  of  1778  ;  complaints  of  Franklin  and  Deauo  ; 

attack  on  Franklin;  references  to  T.  Morris,  Feb.  10,  1778. 
From  Franldin,  Mar.  27,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Izard,  same  date.) 
To  Franli'm.     Calling  for  explanation,  Mar.  29,  1778. 

(Franklin  replies,  Mar.  30,  1778.) 
To  Fraiiklbi.     Calls  his  conduct  unjustifiable,  Mar.  31,  1778. 
To  Laurens.     Denounces  Deane  to  Congress;  desires  commission  to  Naples,  Apr. 

1,  1778. 
To  Franklin.     Demands  fuller  explanation,  Apr.  4,  1778. 
To  Laurens.     Acknowledges  his  mission  to  Tuscany,  but  says  he  is  not  permitted 

to  go  there,  Apr.  11,  1778. 
To  Franklin.     Charges  Franklin  again  with  suppressions  ;  reiterates  his  charges 

against  Franklin,  Apr.  25,  1778. 
Sends  Pringle  to  Franklin  for  explanation  and  Pringle  reports  result.     Pringle 

to  Izard,  Apr.  26,  1778. 
Views  as  to  Izard's  doings.     Laurens  to  Washington,  May  5,  1778. 
To  A.  Lee.     Criticizes  the  fifth  and  eighth  articles  of  the  treaty  of  alliance,  May 

18, 1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  May  23.  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Izard,  same  date.) 
Recalled  by  Congress,  June  8,  1778. 
To  Franklin.     A  denunciatory  letter,  June  17,  1778. 

To  Congress.  Denounces  Franklin  ;  speculates  as  to  European  affairs,  June  23, 1778. 
To  Laurens.     Condemns  Franklin's  course,  and  also  that  of  Gerard,  and  states 
that  W.  Lee  was  right  in  going  to  Vienna,  though  the  court  would  not  re- 
ceive him,  July  25,  1778. 
From  Niccoli,  July  28,  1778. 

(See  Niccoli  to  Izard,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Prospects  of  loan  in  Italy;  asks  that  Vergennes  should  inter- 
vene, Aug.  25,  1778. 
From  Commissioners.     Saying  that  Vergennes  gives  no  encouragement,  Aug.  25, 

1778. 
To  Niccoli.     Saying  that  he  is  disappointed  in  not  being  received  at  Tuscany, 

Sept.  1,  1778. 
To  Vergennes.     Asking  aid  towards  procuring  an  Italian  loan,  Sept.  2,  1778. 
To  Laurens.     Criticizes  tlie  conduct  of  Franklin  as  to  the  "  molasses"  article  in 

the  French  treaty,  Sept.  12,  1778. 
From  Adams,  Sept.  20,'1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Izard,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Complains  of  conduct  of  Spain  ;  supposes  (erroneously)  Franklin  to 
have  endeavored  to  have  wrongly  promoted  his  nephew  ;  his  views  as  to  the 
Dsherics,  Sept.  24,  1778. 
From  Adams,  Sept.  25,  1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Izard,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners.     Claims,  unsuccessfully,  exemption   from    duties    for   his 

goods,  Sept.  26,  1778  (with  inclosures). 
To  Adams.     Views  as  to  fisheries  and  also  as  to  sumptuary  laws,  Sept.  28,  1778. 
From  Adams,  Oct.  2,  1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Izard,  same  date.) 
His  demand  for  goods  seized  by  French  privateers  on  board  an  P^nglish  ship  de- 
clined.    Sartinc  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  7.  1778. 


138  PRELIMINARY    INDEX, 

Izard,  R. — Contiuned. 

Answer  of  Commissioners  to,  Oct.  12,  1778. 

Replied  to  at  large  by  Deaue.     Deane  to  Congress,  Oct.  12,  1778. 
Further  correspondence  in  reference  to  Lis  goods  seized  by  French  privateers. 
Commissioners  to  Sartine,  Oct.  13,  1778;   Commissioners  to  Izard,  Oct.  13,  177S. 
Franco  declines  to  intervene.     Sartine  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  19,  1778. 
From  Comrnittee,  Oct  28,  1778. 

(See  E.  H.  Lee,  and  Lovell  to  Izard,  same  date.) 
Letters  of,  attacking  Franklin,  read  in  Congress,  Oct.  15,  Dec.  17,  1778. 
From  Franldin,  Jau.  4,  1779. 

(See  Franl'liti  to  Izard,  same  date.) 
Franklin    objects    to  fnrfclier   payments   to,    of  salary,  ho  holding   a    sinecure. 

Franldin  to  Committee,  Jan.  15,  1779. 
Franklin  overruled  in  this  matter  by  Adams  and  Lee.     Izard  to  Committee,  Jan. 

28,  1779. 

Desires  permission  to  return,  Jan.  28,  1779. 

Adams  gives  character  of.     Adams  to  Lovell,  Feb.  20,  1779. 

To  Congress.    Informs  Congress  of  his  intended  return.  Mar.  4,  1779. 

Franklin  expLiins  his  refusal  of  salary  to.  May  26,  1779. 

(See  Franldin,  same  date.) 
Comments  of  Lovell  as  to.     Lovell  to  Adams,  June  13,  1779. 
From  Lorell.     Noticing  his  recall,  July  17,  1779. 
To  Committee.     Views  of,  as  to  his  recall  and  as  to  his  charge  for  expenses,  Sept. 

29,  1779. 

Adams'  opinion  of.     Adams  to  Lovell,  Oct.  17,  1779. 
Imj)olicy  of  views  of,  as  to  France.     Adams  to  S.  Adams,  Mar.  4,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Has  returned  and  is  ready  to  give  Congress  any  information  de- 
sired, Aug.  6,  1780. 
Ill  effects  of  his  conduct  in  France.      Vergennes  to  Lnzerne,  Feb.  14,  1781. 
Jackson,  a  su^iposed  spy,  gives  information  to  the  British  ministry,     (.i.   Lee  to 

Committee,  June  3,  1776. 
Jacksox,  Major— 

From  Dana,  Nov.  11,  1780. 

(See  Dana  to  Jackson,  same  date.) 
Agent  for  J.  Laurens.      Adams  to  Laurens,  May  8,  1781. 
From  Franllin,  June  28,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jackson,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin,  explaining  difficulties,  June  29,  1781. 

Correspondence  with  Franklin  as  to  certain  jiroperty  the  title  of  which  was  dis- 
puted.    Jackson  to  Franklin,  July  2,  1781 ;  Franklin   to  Jackson,  July  5,  6,  9, 
1781. 
From  Franklin,  July  10,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jackson,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  16,  1781. 

(Sec  Franklin  to  Jackson,  same  date.) 
Improvident  action  of ;  overpurchaso  of  supplies.     Franklin  to  Congress,  l^o\.  5, 

1781 ;  Franklin  to  Adams,  Nov.  7,  1781 ;  Franklin  to  Lanrevs,lSloy.  8,  1781. 
Approved  by  Adams.     Adams  to  Congress,  June  27,  1783. 
Jamaica.     As  to  sustaining  negroes  in,  in  revolt.     Deane  to  Jag,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
Jay — 

His  services  in  Congress.     Introduction,  v^  155. 

His  opposition  to  "  committee"  government  and  to  the  •' family  compact."   Ibid.,  6 
156. 
-  On  the  Spanish  mission.     Ibid.,  ^  157. 
:->  During  the  peace  negotiations.     Ihid.,  '^  158. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX  139 

Jay — Continued. 

Dislike  of,  by  A.  Lcc.     Ibid.,  U  141, 146, 147. 
His  stiitenionts  as  to  cabal  against  Washington,     fhid.,  ^  11. 
^Course  of  in  peace  negotiations  disapproved  of  by  Hainillon.     Ibid.,  vS  4. 
XDiiferences  with  Franklin  as  to  binding  effect  of  instruction.     Ibid.,  ^  110,  120. 
His  horror  at  British  cruelty.     Ibid.,  ^  22. 
Refuses  to  meet  Deane  in  1784.     Ibid.,  ^  165. 
Chosen  member  of  Committee  of  Corrrespoudouce.     Secret  Journals  of  Couf/ress, 

Nov.  29, 1775. 
A.  Lee  objects  to  his  being  on  the  Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence.     Lee  to 

Golden,  Feb.  13, 14, 1776. 
To  Morris.     Prospects  of  war;  cruelty  of  enemy  such  as  to  make  the  devastation 
of  southeastern  New  York  preferable  to  submission  to  their  atrocities ;  divulg- 
ing of  A.  Lee's  letters,  Oct.  6, 1776. 
From  Deane,  Dec.  3, 1776. 

(Sec  Deane  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  Mar.  1, 1777. 

(See  fVashington  to  Ja^,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     Incapacity  of  Congress;  good  iniluence  of  Gerard;  bad  condi- 
tion of  finances,  Apr.  26, 1779. 
^To  llorris.     Views  with  horror  return  to  dominion  of  England,  and  regards  con- 
ditions as  "happily  counterbalanced"  by  the  intelligence  from  Franco,  Apr. 
29,  1778. 
From  Butledge,  Dec.  25, 1778. 

(See  Bntledge  to  Jai/,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  Apr.  20, 1779. 

(See  Washington  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  May  10, 1779. 

(See  Washington  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Franllin,  June  9, 1779. 

(See  FranJdin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
N^Elected  as  commissioner  to  Spain.     LoreU  to  Adams,  Sept.  27, 1779. 
Congressional  proceedings,  Sept.  25, 27, 1779. 
From  Congress,  Sept.  29, 1779. 

(See  Congress  to  Jay, same  date.) 
Instructions  to  Congress,  Sept.  30, 1779. 
From  Franllin,  Oct.  4, 1779, 

{See  Franklin  to  Jay  {ov  Congress),  same  date. 
•Alustructions  to,  as  to  the  Mississippi  claim.     Congress,  Oct.  13, 14, 1779. 
To  Congress      Narrative  of  his  voyage,  Dec.  20,  22,  24, 25, 26, 27, 1779  ;  Jan.  6, 1780. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  his  voyage  and  perils,  Dec.  27, 1779  ;  Jan.  26, 1780. 
To  A.  Lee.     Asks  for  information  as  to  Spanish  affairs,  Jan.  26, 1780. 
To  Congress.     Advises  of  his  arrival  and  of  his  reporting  to  Spanish  minister  at 

Cadiz,  .Jan.  27, 1780, 
To  Vergenncs.     Reporting  his  arrival  in  Spain,  Jan.  27,  1780. 
From  Carmichael,  Feb.  15,1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Feb.  18,  1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  22,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  22, 1780. 
(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
"">From  Florida  lilanca.     Postponing  his  reception,  Feb.  24, 1780. 
(See  Florida  Blanca  to  Jay,  same  date.) 


140  prp:liminary  index. 

Jay — Continued. 

-.  To  Carmichael.     Giving  details  of  his  mission,  Feb.  25,  1780. 

-^To  Congress.     Announcing  reception  at  Madrid  and  giving  views  as  to  treaty  with 
Spain  ;  suggests  Guatier  for  Barcelona,  March  3,  1780. 
From  A.  Lee,  Mar.  17,  1780. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  de  Neufville,  Apr.  7,  1780. 

(See  de  NeufviUe  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  FranM'm  Apr.  7,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  accounts ;  expresses  his  affection  for  France ;  position  of  Spai  n 

Apr.  27,  1780. 
From  Adarns,  May  13,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  15,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Gives  detailed  account  ot  his  negotiations  in  Spain  and  incloses  his 
own  exposition,  in  reply  to  the  Spanish  ministry,  of  the  condition  of  the 
United  States,  May  26, 1780. 
From  Carmichael,  May  27,  1780. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  NeufviUe,  June  1,  1780. 

(See  Neufville  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Neufville,  June  8,  1780. 

(See  Neufville  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  13,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Committee.     Notified  of  bills  drawn  on  him,  June  16,  1780. 
To  Neufville.     Thanks  Neufville  and  son  for  assistance,  Juno  25,  1780. 
(See  Neufville  to  Jay,  July  13,  1780.) 
From  Couteulx,  3vi\y  4,  1780. 

(See  Couteulx  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
'To  Congress.     Financial  troubles;  expense  of  distressed  American  seamen,  July 

10,  1786. 
From  Lovell,  July  11,  1780. 

(See  Lovell  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Neufville,  July  28,  1780. 

(See  Neufville  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Neufville.     Anxietj'^  about  Laurens;  loss  of  Charleston,  July  29,  17S0. 
Detained  in  Aug.,  1780,  at  Madrid  by  death  of  child.     Carmichael  to  Congress, 

Aug.  22,  1780. 
To  Deane.     Expressions  of  friendship,  Sept.  8,  1780. 
To  Congress.     No  more  bills  can  be  drawn  on  him ;  Spain  offers  to  aid  a  loan  for 

$150,000,  Sept.  16,  1780. 
To  Vergennes.     As  to  critical  condition  of  American  finances  in  Spain,  Sept.  22, 

1780. 
From  FrankUv,  Oct.  2,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  Oct.  4,  1780. 

(See  Congress  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Neufville.     As  to  financial  matters,  Oct.  4,  1780. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  finances,  Oct.  5,  1780. 

To  Franklin.     Kindness  of  Prince  Massarano;  other  details,  Oct.  25,  1780. 
To  Lovell.     DiflSculty  in  forwarding  letters,  Oct.  27,  1780. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  141 

Jay — Continued. 

To  Franklin.     Expressing  gratitude  at  relief  by  Franklin's  aid  from  the  claims  on 
him;  confusion  as  to  settlement  for  former  supplies;  condition  of  American 
campaign,  Oct.  30,  1780. 
^'o  Congress.      Cumberland's  position  and  character  at  Madrid;    Abbd  Hussey  ; 
Florida  Bhuica  i)ledges  Si»anish  fidelity  to  America  ;  correspondence  and  con- 
ference with  Florida  Blanca  and  with  Mountmorin  ;  references  to  Gardoc^ui, 
conversation  with  Gardoqui,  Nov.  C,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Incloses  papers  relative  to  Morocco  ;  inefQcieucy  of  Spanish  Gov- 
ernment, Nov.  30,  1780. 
To  Committee,    Importance  of  system  of  private  expressuge  of  letters,  Nov.  30, 

1780. 
From  Franldin,  Jan.  27,  1781. 

(See  Fraiikiin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
Promised  a  part  of  the  loan  by  Spain  to  meet  bills.     Carmicliael  to  Committee,  Jan. 

29,  1781. 
From  Congress,  Feb.  15,  1781. 

(See  Congress  (Huntington)  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Committee,  Feb.  20,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  or  Committee  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Difficulty  of  raising  funds  in  Madrid  ;  intervention  of  go-betweens ; 

his  dependence  on  Franklin,  Feb.  21,  1781. 
From  Lovell,  Mar.  9,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    French  fleet  not  sailed ;   Spain  has  promised  a  loan  of  $150,000 ;  sup- 
plies being  shipped  ;  Russia's  oflerof  mediation  accepted  by  the  States-Gen- 
eral; England's  answer  not  known  ;  Cumberland  will  depart  in  a  few  days, 
Mar.  22,  1781. 
Special  agency  to  correspond  with  ;  action  of  Congress  under  date  of  Mar.  24, 1781. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  28,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.    Unable  to  obtain  funds  to  keep  bills  from  protest ;  has  depended  on 
Franklin's  good  ofitices  for  his  support ;  must  continue  drawing  on  him,  Apr. 
— ,  1781. 
From  Franklin.     Is  desired  by  Jay  to  be  his  successor  as  minister  to  France,  Apr. 
12,  1781. 
(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Thomson.     Importance  of   better  arrangement  of  foreign  affairs ;  letters  are 
opened  or  intercepted ;  Congress'  "  ungenerous  "  concessions  as  to  the  Missis- 
sippi were  known  in  Europe  before  they  reached  him  ;  damage  done  by  draw- 
ing without  funds,  Apr.  23,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Spain  demands  control  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi ;  Spain 
promises  to  become  responsible  for  a  loan  of  !$150,000 ;  endeavors  to  obtain 
loan;  letter  to  De  Neufville  on  that  subject  (Jan.  8);  no  money  to  pay  bills 
of  exchange  ;  money  received  from  Spain  ;  loan  obtained  on  personal  credit 
of  French  embassador;  advises  that  ships  on  stocks  be  sold  to  Spain;  sup- 
plies of  prize  goods  presented  by  France  and  Spain  sent;  disposition  of  Port- 
ugal; Franklin;    Cumberland's  mission;  disposition  of  Spain;  Del  Campo; 
case  of  the  Dover  cutter;  Toseau,  French  vice-consul  to  Boston,  Apr.  25, 1781. 
From  Franklin,  May  5,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date. ) 
From  CoM^re.s.5.     Disavowing   understanding  with  Britain;    authorizing  him  to 
continue  to  ask  for  treaty  with  Spain  ;  and  re-instructing  him  to  recede  from 
claim  to  navigation  of  Mississippi  below^  31st  degree  north  latitude,  May  28, 
1781. 
(See  Congress  to  Jay,  same  date.) 


142  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Jay— Cou  tinned. 

To  Congress.     General  atfriirs  in  Spain,  May  29,  1781. 

To  FranMiu.     Want  of  intelligence  from  America  ;  states  tb.at  he  has  declined  to 
administer  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Vaughau,  uot  thiukiug  he  has  thejjower, 
May  :U,  1761. 
From  Lovell,  June  4,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  June  5,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Lovell,  June  15,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Franlxlin,  June  30,  1781. 

(See  Franllin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  4,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  7,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  9.  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Franldin.    Want  of  intelligcDce ;  as  to  relief  of  Talhot  and  other  American  pris- 
oners, July  9,  1781. 
From  Morris,  July  13,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  29,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  August  10,  1781. 

(See  Congress  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  August  15,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Lovell,  August  15,  1781. 

(See  Lovell  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Franldin,  August  20,  1781. 

(See  FranMiu  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  September  4,  1781. 
(See  Franldin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Accepts  appointment  as  peace  commissioner,  but  objects  to  instruc- 
tions to  act  in  conjunction  with  France ;  has  no  funds  to  meet  the  demands 
on  him,  September  20,  1781. 
From  Franldin,  September  29,  1781. 
.        (See  LYanldin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
>To  Congress.     Stating  the  difficulties  in  which  he  was  placed  by  the  recent  recep- 
tion of  the  resolution  of  Congress  of  Feb.  15,  1781,  requiring  him,  for  the 
sake  of  recognition  and  of  aid,  to  surrender  the  claim  of  the  United  States 
to  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.     In  couformitj^  with  this  instruc- 
tion he  made  the  offer  to  the  Spanish  minister,  conditioned,  however,  on 
immediate   action.      He    then   narrates   the   protracted   and  unsatisfactory 
negotiations  that  followed,  coming  to  no   practical   result,  Spain   neither 
agreeing  to  acknowledge  independence  or  to  afford  any  pecuniary  aid,  Oct. 
3,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  his  acceptance  of  certain  bills,  Oct.  18,  1781, 
From  Franldin,  Oct.  16,  1781. 

(See  Franllin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  1,  1781. 

{'^Q^  Livingston  to  Jay,  same  datp.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  143 

Jay— Continued. 

From  Adams,  Nov.  26,  1781. 

(Sec  Adams  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Livinfjston,  Nov.  28,  1781. 

(See  Liviiif/ston  to  Jai/,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  28,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Jo?/,  same  date.) 
To  Knox.     Congratulations  on  Yorktown,  Dec.  10,  1781. 
Fi'om  Livingston,  Dec.  13,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Jatj,  same  date.) 
From  Adams.     Dilatory  and  evasive  course  of  Spain,  Dec.  15,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  19,  1782.     Advised  as  to  proper  course  in  view  of  S])aiiisli 
dihitoriness. 
(See  FranMin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  2,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
-^Acknowledges  papers,  and  speaks  of  letters  being  tampered   with.     Jay  to  LAv- 
ingsion,  Feb.  6,  1782 ;  Jay  to  Congress,  Feb.  27,  1782. 
Embarrassment  from  failure  of  remittances.     Carniichael  to  Livingston,  Feb.  27, 

1782. 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  8,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  16, 1782. 
(See  FrankVni  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
^  From.  Franklin.    Franklin  assumes  payment  of  bills  drawn  on;  urges  his  presence 
in  Paris.     FranMin  to  Jay,  Apr.  22,  1782. 
(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Apr.  23,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  FrmikUn,  Apr.  23,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  24,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jct?/,  same  date.) 
-XTo  Morris.     Family  details,  and  social  relations  in  Spain,  Apr.  25,  1782. 

From  LAvingston.     His  treatment  by  Spain  commented  on  ;  position  to  be  taken 

as  to  Mississippi  Valley,  Apr.  27,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Apr.  28,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Gives  narrrative  of  his  official  business  and  affairs  at  Madrid  ;  re- 
ports difficulties  as  to  Captain  Hill  and  Commodore  Gillon,  Apr.  28,  1782. 
Estimate  of  his  expenses.     Livingston  to  Congress,  May  8,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  May  9,  1782. 

(See  LAvingston  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston,     Proposes  early  departure  for  Paris,  May  14,  1782. 
From  Livingslon,  June  23,  1782. 

(Sec  Livingston  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Arrival  in  Paris;  peace  negotiations,  June  25,  1782. 
To  Mountmorin.     Journey  from  Spain  to  France ;  prospects  of  peace,  Jqae  26, 1782. 
From  Livingston,  July  6,  1782. 

(See  Livi'igston  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     As  to  political  prospects,  Aug.  2,  1782, 
Action  of  Congress  as  to,  Aug.  6,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Aug.  10,  1782. 
( See  Adams  to  Jay,  same  (late.) 


144  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Jay — Contiuned. 

From  Adams,  Aug.  13,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Jay,  same  date. 
From  Adams,  Aug.  17,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Recommending  W.  T.   Franklin  as  secretary,  April   25,   1781  (in- 
closed in  letter  to  Congress  of  Franklin  of  Sept.  3,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  4,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jag,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Sej/t.  18,  1782. 
(See  Livingston  to  Jag,  same  date.) 
^To  Livingston.     Transmitting  the  Marbois  intercepted  letter,  the  way  he  received 
which  ho  is  not   ''at  liberty  to  mention;"  expresses  distrust  of   France, 
Sept.  18,  1782. 
As  to  this  letter  see  infra  Marhois. 
To  Adams.     Announcing  Oswald's  powers  and  asking  Adams'  j>i"esence  in  Parir  ; 

Sept.  2-^,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Announcing  Oswald's  powers,  Sept.  28,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Oct.  7,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
:^To  Livingston.     Saying  he  refused  to  treat  under  Oswald's  first  power,  Oct.  13, 1782. 
^To  Morris.     To  same  effect,  Oct  13,  1782. 
From  Washington,  Oct.  18,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
•^  His  dislike  of  Frenchmen.     Adams^  journal  Nov.  5,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Giving  full  account  of  share  in  peace  negotiations  to  date;  Mis- 
sissippi Valley,  Nov.  17,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  23,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Unanimity  among  commissioners,  Dec.  12,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Satisfaction  with  the  peace  and  hopes  for  the  future,  Dec.  14, 1782. 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  30,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Jay,  same  date  ;  also  Jan.  4, 1783.) 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  4,  1783. 

(See  JAvingston  to  Jay,  same  date  ;  and  same  to  same,  Dec.  30,  1782.) 
^To  La  Fayette.     Good  faith  to  be  maintained  to  France;  no  aid  to  be  exjjccted 
from  Spain,  Jan.  19,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     Expressing  personal  respect  and  approval  of  his  grandson  as  sec- 
retary, Jan.  26,  1783. 
To  Deane.     Refusing  to  correspond  with,  Feb.  23,  1783. 

To  Vaughan.   Treaty  one  of  wise  liberality  on  part  of  England;  question  as  to 
navigation  acts  ;  no  reason  why  tories  should  be  compensated  for  their  losses ; 
Lord  Shelburne's  system  liberal  and  conciliatory,  Mar.  28,  17»3. 
^To  Livingston.     Announcing  that  he  is  to  be  formally  received  at  Madrid,  Apr. 
7,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Parliamentary  news;  the  mediating  courts  to  appear  at  the  de- 
finitive treaties,  Apr.  11,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     As  to  definitive  treaty  and  Spanish  relations ;  impaired  health, 

Apr.  22,  1783. 
To  JAvingston.     Recommending  Adams  as  minister  to  England,  May  30,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Looks  to  Carmichael  to  makeup  accounts,  June  1,  1783. 
To  Hartley.     Proposed  agreement  as  to  definitive  treaty,  June  1, 1783. 
^To  Morris.      France  can  supply  no  more  funds  ;  distrusts  France,  July  17,  1783. 
To  Livingston.     Satisfaction  with  preliminary  articles;  importance  of  national 
spirit,  and  of  constant  preparation  for  war,  July  19,  1783. 


¥ 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  145 

Jay — Contimied. 

To   Thomson.     Hoping  be  will  write  a  history  of  the  Revolution,  July  19,  1783. 

To  Livingston.     Couditions  of  proposed  resignation,  July  20,  1783. 

To  Morris.     Speaks  well  of  Gouvenour  Morris ;  regrets  R.  Morris'  resignation  ; 

France  can  supply  no  more  ^"uuds,  July  20,  1783. 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  10,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Vindicating  latter  from  charge  of  lukewarmuess  as  to  fisheries, 

Sep t.  1 1 ,  1783.     (See  Fra nklin . ) 
To  Thomson.     Thinks  reciprocity  to  be  the  basis  of  commercial  treaties ;  would 

discountenance  privateering,  Sept.  12,  1783. 
To  LiviiKjston.      Reciprocity  the  true  system  ;    recommeuds  leniency   to   tories, 

Sept.  13,  1783. 
To  Schuijler.    lienefits  of  the  peace,  Sept.  16,  1783. 
To  Hamilton.    Bad  effect  of  reports  of    American  dissensions;  leniency  to  tories, 

Sept.  28,  1783. 
From  Morris,  Nov.  4,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Livinijston,  ]:^oy.  27, 1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Jaij,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Nov.  27, 178:5. 

(Sec  Morris  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
Elected  secretary  of  foreign  affairs.     Congress,  May  7, 1784. 
To  Congress.    Has  returned  to  New  York  and  made  arrangements  as  to  his  accounts; 

ratification  of  treaty,  July  25, 1784. 
Report  to  Congress  as  to  recognition  of  independence  and  sovereignty  of  the 

United  States  and  closure  of  war,  Mar.  4, 1785.     (See  Caimichael,  iSpain.) 

JKFI^^KRSOX — 

His  position  in  revolutionary  politics.     Introduction,  $  4e. 

Opinion  of  Adams  in  Europe.     Ibid.,  ^  131. 

Information  given  as  to  Deane  in  1788.     Ibid.,  ^  165. 

High  opinion  of  Dumas.     Ibid.,  ^  185. 

Appointed,  with  Franklin  and  Deane,  to  make  a  treaty  with  France.     Committee 

to  Deane,  Oct.  4, 1776. 
From  Adams,  June  29, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Jefferson,  same  date.) 
Commissioned  as  peace  plenipotentiary.     Liringsfon  to  Jaffirson,  Nov.  13,  1782; 
Livingston  to  Luzerne,  Nov.  26,  1782;  Jefferson  to  Livingston,  Nov.  26,  1782; 
Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Nov.  29, 1782. 
To  Livingston.    Delay  in  his  passage  to  Europe,  Feb.  7, 1783. 
To  Luzerne.     To  same  effect,  Feb.  7, 1783. 
From  Livingston.     His  departure  no  longer  pressed,  Feb.  14, 1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Jefferson,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  18, 1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Jefferson,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Apr.  4,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Jefferson,  same  date.) 
From  Madison,  May  13,  1783. 

(See  Madison  to  Jefferson,  same  date.) 
From  Madison,  June  10,  1783. 

(See  Madison  to  Jefferson,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Feb.  25,  178 i. 

(See  Morris  to  Jefferson,  same  date.) 
Elected  minister  for  negotiation  of  treaties  of  commerce.     Congress  May  7,  1784. 
Jenifer.     From  J/o?t/s,  June  11,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Jenifer,  same  date.) 
10  WH 


14G  PEELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Jenkixson.     Seut  to  France  by  British  Government  to  watcli  Deaue.     Utaue  to  Com- 

miitee,  Aug.  18,  1776 ;    W.  Lee  to  Dumas,  Sept.  10,  1776. 
Jennings — 

Now  in  London,  recommended,  to  Congress  for  employment.     .A.  Lee  to  Committee 

Dec.  8,  1777. 
From  Adams.     As  to  views  of  war,  Mar.  13,  1780. 
''An  American,  residing  in  London,  but  a  warm  friend."     (Sparks,  in  note  to 

Adams'  letter  a,bove  cited.) 
From  Dana,  Apr.  20,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Jennings,  same  date.) 
From  Dana.     Asking  bim  to  accompany  liim  to  Russia,  Apr.  21,  1781. 
To  Dana.     Difficulties  as  to  joining  his  mission,  May  3,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Congress,  May  13,  1781.) 
Character  condemned  by  S.  Laurens  to  Ministers,  Sept.  11,  1783. 
Suggested  as  secretary  of  the  peace  commission.     Adams  to  Laurens,  Sept.  15, 1882. 
Notice  of.    Adams\journaJ,  Nov.  3,  1782. 
Johnson  (member  of  Congress),  chosen    member  of  Committee  of  Correspondence. 

Secret  Journals  of  Congycs^s,  Nov.  29,  1775. 
Johnson,  Captain.     Capture  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Nov.  30,  1777. 
Johnson — 

Recommended  to  Congress  by  D'Estaiug,  July  8,  1778. 
Johnson  (of  Maryland). 

From  FranMin,  Apr.  8,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Johnson,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  29,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Johnson,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  22,  1780. 
(See  Franklin  to  Johnson,  same  date.) 
Johnstone,  Governor,  to  Morris,  sounding  hini  as  to  peace,  Feb.  5,  1778. 
Corrupt  approaches  to  Morris,  June  16,  1778. 

His  suggestions  as  to  peace.    (See  Franklin  to  Hartley,  Oct.  26,  1778.) 
Joint  ENVOYS.     Impolicy  of  having.     Introduction,  §»  106. 
Jones,  J.  Paul.     Public  services  of.     Fbid.,  ^  190. 

From  Franklin.     To  command  a  ship  built  at  Amsterdam,  June  1,  1776. 
Commissioned  to  take  command  of  the  Aniphitrite :  May  9,  1777. 
His  efficiency.     Ibid. 
From  Franklin  and  Deane.     Giving  instructions  to.     Jan.  16,  1778. 

(See  Commissioner  to  Jones,  same  date. ) 
Question  of  assistance  to.     Commis-iioners  to  fniliams,  May  25,  1778. 
From  Commissioners.     Instructions,  May  25,  1778. 
From  Franklin.     Further  suggestions,  May  27,  1778. 
From  Franklin.     Giving  advice,  June  10,  16,  1778. 
Representations  as  to.     Commissioners  to  Sartinc,  June  15,  1778. 
His  explanation  as  to  Simpson,  June  16,  1778. 
To  Commissioners.     Complaining  of  neglect,  Aug.  13,  1778. 
To  Whipple.     Asks  for  court-martial  of  Simpson,  Aug.  18,  1778. 
From  Whipple.     Court-martial  refused,  Aug.  19,  1778. 

From  Commissioners.     Court-martial  ordered  by  commissioners,  Aug.  22,  1778. 
From  Franklin.     Instructions,  Sept.  6,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  from  Jones,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee.     Objections  to  above  instructions,  Jan.  17,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Jones,  same  date.) 
Proposes  to  return  Lady  Selkirk's  plate.     Franklin  to  Schiveighauser,  Feb.  10, 1779. 
From  Commissioners.     Leaving  the  Banger  approved,  Feb.  10,  1779. 
(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Jones,  same  date.) 


PKELlMINAliY    INDEX.  147 

Jones,  J.  Paul — Continued. 

From  Franklin,  Feb.  !24,  1770. 

(iit^o  Fronklhi  to  Virdi'inKs,  same  date.) 
From  Fran kU II,     Instructions  to,  Ai>r.  28,  1779. 

(See  Franhrni  to  Jones,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jiily  8,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jones,  same  date.) 
Kecommended  to  Dumas  for  advice  and  protectiou.     Chaumont  to  Dumaa,  Sept.  2, 

1779. 
A<^reement  with  Captain  Pearson,  prisoner  of  war,  Oct.:?,  1779. 
To  Morris.     Giving  narrative  of  capture  o{  Serajns,  Oct.  115,  1779 
From  Franklin.     His  victory  commended,  Oct.  15,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jonis,  same  date.) 
Reports  it  to  comtnissiouers  of  the  Navy,  Oct.  17,  1779. 
Commands  again.     Franklin  to  Cooper,  Oct.  27,  1779.     (See  Alliance.) 
From  VaiKjnijon,  Oct.  29,  1779. 

(See  Fangnijon  to  Jones,  same  date.) 
Protests  against  reception  in  HoUand.     Jones  to  States- General,  Oct.  29,  1779. 
Gives  orders  as  to  prisoners.     Jones  to  Weibert,  Nov.  4,  1779. 
Replies  to  Vauguyon,  Nov.  4,  1779. 

Dumas  gives  information  as  to.  Dumas  to  Vaitffuyon,  Nov.  9,  11,  13,  1779. 
Subsequent  proceedings  narrated.  Dumns  to  Committee,  Dec.  10,  11,  1779. 
To  Franklin.     Defends  his  proceedings,  Dec.  13,  1779. 

(See  Jones  to  Vauginjon,  same  date.) 
From  Beijnst.    Inquiries  as  to  his  Hag,  Dec.  17,  1779. 

(See  Reynst  to  Jones,  same  date.) 

(Answer  Jones  to  lieijnst,  Dec.  17,  1779.) 
From  JAvoncourt,  Dec.  17, 1779. 

(See  Lironcourt  to  Jones,  same  date.) 
To  Dianas.     Proxjosing  a  cruise,  Dec.  27, 1779. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  1, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jones,  same  date.) 
His  exploits;  quarrel  v^'ith  Landais.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Mar,  4,  1780. 
Recommended  to  Congress.     Franklin  to  Congress,  June  1,  1780. 
Appointed  captain  of  the  Allianee.  Franklin  to  officers  o/the  Alliance,  Juno  16, 1780. 
From  Franklin,  June  17,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Jones,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Dithculties  of  his  position;  disputes  as  to  the  Alliance,  June  27, 

1780. 
Difficulties  as  to  ;  sails  in  the  Ariel  for  the  United  States,     Franklin  to  Congress, 

Aug.  9,  1780. 
To  Dinnas.     Narrative  of  adventures;  Lonis  XVI  gives  him  a  sword  and  recom- 
mends him  to  Congress,  Sept.  8,  1780. 
Has  been  driven  back  in  the  Ariel  in  a  storm,  but  is  relitting.     Franklin  to  Lorell, 

Dec.  2,  1780;  Franklin  to  Congress,  Dec.  3,  1780. 
To  J.  Brown.     Answers  to  questions  of  the  board  of  admiralty,  giving  account  of 

his  naval  operations  and  matters  connected  therewith,  Mar.  13,  1781. 
Certain  questions  relating  to,  answered.  Franklin  to  Lewis,  Mar.  17,  1781. 
Position  of  Dutch  authorities  to  (see  manifesto  given  by).     Adams  to  Congress, 

Mar.  18,  1781.) 
To  Congress.     Thanking  them  for  their  favorable  action,  April  22,  1781. 
Complaint  against.     Livingston  to  Jones,  April  17,  1782;   Luzerne  to  Livingston, 

April,  17,  1782. 
Expenses  of,  paid  by  France.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Dec.  25,  1783. 
Jordan,  John.     Case  of.     Livingston  to  Congress,  Feb.  2(i,  1782, 


148  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Joseph  II,  Emperor.     Position  of,  to  RevolutioD.     Introduction,  ^S  'J6. 

Joy.     Passport  oi".     Franklin  to  Brown,  Aug.  6,  1781. 

'' Junius."    Bad  influence  on  politics  of  Arthur  Lee  and  others.    lutrcdaction,  '^S  147. 

Kalb,  Baron — 

Revolutionary  services  of.     Introduction,  ^  ').  79^. 

Employed  by  Broglie  to  sound  Congress  as  to  receiviug  Broglie  as  general.     Ibid., 
§  77. 

His  character.    Ibid.,  78  ff. 

Secret  mission  to  America  in  1767.     Ibid.,  §  80. 

Narrative  of  death  of .     Ibid.,  ^  8i. 

Desires  to  enter  service  of  the  Uuired  States.     Dcane  to  Committee,  Nov.  6,  177G_ 

Recommended  as  a  capable  othcer.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  28,  1770, 

Agreement  between  Deane  and  De  Kalb.     Dcane  to  Committee,  Dec.  G,  1776. 

To  Adams.    Offers  letters  of  recommendation.     Dec.  27,  1776. 

Estate  of.     Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Apr.  17,  1782 ;  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  June  7,  1782, 

Claim  of.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Apr.  28,  1784. 
Kapp.    Views  as  to  character  of  Kalb.     Introduction,  ^  79. 
Kehmelin.    Introduction  of.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  Nov.  7,  1782. 
King  of  France  (see  Louis  XVI). 
King  AND  Queen  of  France — 

Arrival  of  i^ortraits  of    Luzerne  to  Congress,  Apr.  6^  1784  ;   Congress  to  King  o/ 
France,  Apr.  16,  1784. 
King  op  Great  Britain  (see  George  III). 
King  of  Prussia— 

From  A.  Lee,  June  29,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  King  of  Prussia,  same  date. 

From  A.  Lee,  July  11, 1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  King  of  Prussia,  same  date.     See  Frederick,  Prussia.) 
Knox— 

From  Jay,  Dec.  10,  1781. 
(See  Jay  to  Knox,  same  date.) 
KoTKOUSKi.    Introduction  of     Franklin  to  Washington,  June  13,  1777, 
Laetitia,  brig.     Question  as  to  seizure  of.     Livingston  to  Luzerne,  Oct.  30,  1782  ;   Lu- 
zerne to  Dillon,  Nov.  8,  1782. 
La  Fayette — 

Revolutionary  services  of.     Introduction,  ^  72. 

His  statement  as  to  opposition  to  Washington  by  "Lees  and  Adamses."     Ibid., 

Agreement  between  Deane  and.     Deane  to  Committee,  Dec.  6,  1776. 
His  visit  to  America  and  his  character.     Commissionersto  Committee,  May  25, 1777. 
To  Adams.    Giving  him  letters  for  France  and  gives  him  suggestions,  Jan.  9,  1778. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  3, 1778. 

(Sec  Adams  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
From  Adams.     Letter  of  courtesy,  Feb.  8,  1778. 
Congress  votes  sword  to,  Oct.  21, 1778. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  21,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  22,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     On  behalf  of  "an  officer,"  desiring  service,  Apr.  9,  1779. 
Movements  of.    Franklin  to  Committee,  May  26,  1779, 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  19,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin.     Sword  as  memorial  gift,  Aug.  24,  1779. 
(See  Franklin  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  149 

La  Fayette — Coutiuned. 

From  Franklin,  Oct.  1,  1779. 

(See  Fraitklin  to  La  Fai/etfc,  same  date.) 
From  Fraiiliiii,  Nov.  10,  I77i>. 

(See  Franklin  to  La  Faifctle,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,, Fah.  18, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  La  Fai/ctle,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Comments  on  cnrreut  events,  Feb.  10,  1780. 
Commended  by  Franklin.     Franklui  in  JVashinf/ton,  Mar.  .''),  1780. 
Returns  to  America.     Franklin  to  Lovell,  Mar.  1(5, 1780. 
Commended  by  Carmicliael,  Mar.  t^l,1780. 

To  Reed.     Importance  ofoTcatcr  military  energy,  May  'M,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  9,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  La  Fayetic,  same  date.) 
To  Chairman  of  Commitlee  of  Congress.     As  to  forwarding  supplies,  and  also  as  to 

Franklin  and  the  alliance,  Dec.  16,  1780. 
Yvom  Franklin,  May  14,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  La  Faijeiic,  same  date.) 
Participation  m  capture  of  Coriiwallis.     Livinf/sion  to  Dana,  Oct.  21,  17S1,  note. 
Resolution  of  Congress  as  to,  Nov.  23,  1781. 

To  Washington.     Reports  difficulty  in  obtaining  funds  in  France,  and  a  feeling 

that  America  might  do  more;  popular  friendship  for  America,  Jan.  30,1782. 

To  Vergenncs.     Gives  details  as  to  the  unlriendliness  of  Spain  in  American  alfairs, 

Mar.  20,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  28,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  La  Fageite,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.    As  to  political  prospects,  Mar.  27,  1782. 
To  Washingion.     Political  affairs  in  Europe,  Mar.  30,  1782. 
To  LJvingston.     Of  same  date,  on  same  topics. 

To  Washington.     Will  remain  in  France,  assisting  the  American  cause,  until  re- 
quired to  rejoin  the  Army  for  the  next  campaign,  Mar.  30,  1782. 
To  Washington.     Preparations  for  and  prospects  of  coming  campaign,  Apr.  12, 1782. 
His  intervention  on  behalf  of  H.  Laurens.     Laurens  to  Congress,  May  30,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  peace,  June  20,  1782  (given  in  Franklin\s  Journal,  under  date 

of  July  1,  1782). 
To  LAvingston.     Sketch  of  peace  negotiations,  June  25,  1782. 
Participation  in  x^eace  negotiations.     (See  Franklin^ s  journal,  given  under  date  of 

July  1,  1782.) 
From  Franklin,  July  9,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  La  Fayeiie,  same  date.) 
From  Liringston,  Jul^^  24,  1782. 

(See  LAvingston  to  Lm  Fayette,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  18,  1782. 

(See  LAvingston  to  Fai  Fayette,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  29,  1782. 

{^eey Adams  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Speculations  as  to  peace,  Oct.  C,  1782. 
To  Washington.     Probabilities  of  campaign,  Oct.  14,1782. 
To  Washington.     As  to  his  personal  plans,  Oct.  24,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  2,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
Presence  at  peace  negotiation.     Adams''  journal,  Nov.  20,  1732. 
To  Vergennes.     Progress  of  negotiations;  excellence  of  American  Army ;  poverty 

of  the  people;  claims  to  pecuniary  aid,  Nov.  22,  1782. 
From  Commissioners.     Approving  of  his  voyage  to  the  United  States,  Nov.  28, 1782. 


150  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

L  A  F  A  YETT  K — Continue  d . 

To  Congress.    Has  acted  under  the  direction  of  Cougress  and  the  Commissioners, 

Dec.  3,  1782. 
To  Washington.     Proposes  to  join  D'Estaiug,  Dec.  4,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     His  continued  affection  for  the  United  States,  Dec.  8,  1783. 
To  Vergennes.     Naval  preparations;  prospects  of  general  peace,  Jan.  1,  1783. 
From  Lii'ingslon,  Jan.  10,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Jan.  19,  1783. 

(Sec  Jay  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
To  Carmichael.     Importance  of  alliance  with  France;  America  owes  nothing  to 

any  power  but  France,  Jan.  20,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Congratulatory  on  peace;  the  intended  French  campaign  of  1783, 

Feb.  5,  1783. 
To  Livingsion.     As  to  intended  campaign  ;  nnfrieudlluess  of  Spain;  proposed  visit 
to  Madrid ;  trusts  America  will  maintain  herself  against  Spain,  Feb.  5,  22, 1783. 
To  Hamilton.     Desire  to  continue  in  American  service ;  importance  of  continental 

nnion;  Avould  accept  legation  from  United  States  to  London,  Feb.  6,  1783. 
To  Florida  Blanca.     Attitude  of  Spain  to  the  United  States,  Feb.  19,  1783. 
(Concnrred  in  by  Florida  Blanea  to  La  Fayette,  Feb.  22,  1783.) 
(See  La  Fayette  to  Florida  Blanea,  Feb.  22,  1783;  La  Fayette  to  Livingston,  Mar. 
2,  1783.) 
From  Livingston,  May  1,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     As  to  forjual  mediation  of  imperial  courts,  May  12,  1783. 
To  Vergennes,  June  29,  1783. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  T'ergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Improved  condition  of  affairs  in  Spain,  July  20,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Congratnlations  as  to  peace;  importance  of  union  and  national 

spirit,  Sept.  7,  1783. 
His  good  offices  rendered  to  America.     Franldin  to  Morris,  Oct.  25,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Political  affairs  in  Europe ;  proposes  a"  visit  to  the  United  States, 

Dec.  26, 1783. 
From  Calonne,  Jan.  9,  1784. 

(See  Calonne  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     Proposes  to  visit  Ameiica  ;  general  European  news;  friendship 

of  France,  May  14,  1784. 
From  Morris,  May  19,  1784. 

(See  Mo7'ris  to  La  Fayette,  same  date.) 
La  Fayette,  ship.     Loss  of  goods  by,  replaced.     Franldin  to  Chamberlain,  Aug.  24, 

1781. 
Lamargais.     (See  Introduction,  ^75.) 
Lametiis.     (See  Introduction,  \S  78.) 
L  AN  DAIS,  Captain — 

Difficulties  with  Jones.     Introduction,  kS  190. 
Introduced.     Deane  to  Committee,  Sept.  3,  1777. 

Difficulties  as  to.     La  Fayette  to  Adams,  April  9,  1779;  Franklin  to  Marine  Com- 
mittee, .June  2,  1779. 
Censure  of,  by  Franklin.     Franklin  to  Jones,  Oct.  15,  1779. 
Quarrel  with  Jones.     Franklin  to  Jones,  Mar.  1,  1780  ;  Fvankliuto  Sariine,  Mar.  20, 

1780  ;  Franklin  to  Landais,  June  7,  1780  ;  Franklin  to  Congress,  Mar.  4, 1780. 
Statement  of  the  case  against  him.     Franklin  to  Xavy  Board,  Mar.  15,  1780. 
Ordered  to  leave  the  Alliance.     Franklin  to  Landais,  June  KJ,  1780. 
Relations  to  Jones.    Introduction,  ^  190, 
Further  difficulties  with.     Panl  Jones  to  Franklin,  .Jane  27,  1780. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  151 

Laxdais— Continued. 

Difficulties  as  to;  sails  in  the  AUiancc  witii  stores  for  the  United  States.    Frank- 

Ihi  to  Co)igress,  Au<i,-.  9,  1780. 
Questions  as  to.     Franklin  to  Lewis,  Mar.  17, 1781. 
Lands,  ruuLic.     Security  for  foreign  loans.     Dcane  to  Committee,  Dec.  1,  177G. 
Laxgdox,  in  Congress,  May  W.,  1770,  notice  of. 
Laumoy  (French  officer).     Contract  with,  Feb,  13,  1777. 

Letter  commending.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Nov.  24, 1781. 
Lauhaguais,  Count.     Indiscretion  of.     Dcanc  to  Committee,  Aug.  18, 177G. 
Laurens,  H.— 

His  diplomatic  appointments.     Introduction,  v>  172. 

His  course  in  the  To\Yer.     Ihid.,  ^  193. 

Elected  President  of  Congress.     Committee  to  Commifisioners,  Nov.  8, 1777. 

From  Adams,  Dec.  23, 1777. 

(Sec  Adnm'i  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Dec.  SO,  1777. 

(See  Morris  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Feb.  16, 1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
From /'m;iA;/j»,  Mar.  31,1778. 

(Sec  Franklin  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Apr.  1, 1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Laurens,  samo  date.) 
From  Izard,  Apr.  11, 1778. 

(Sec  Izard  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     Views  as  to  dit^'erenccs  among  American  envoys  at  Paris  and  as 

to  English  overtures  ;  views  as  to  difficulties  in  Army,  May  5, 1778. 
From  Izard,  June  28,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  July  25,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
From  J  dams,  Aug.  27,  1778. 

(ScQ Adams  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  Sept.  12,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
Resignation  of  chair,  Dec.  l(j,  1778. 

Address  to  Congress  as  to  a  certain  letter  charged  to  him,  May  15,  1779. 
From  Adams,  Oct.  25,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
Instructions  as  minister  to  Holland,  Oct.  26, 1779. 
From  Committee,  Dec.  11, 1779. 

(See  Lovell  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Preparations  for  departure,  Jan.  24,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Plans  of  voyage,  Feb.  14,  24, 1780. 

Franklin  requested  to  assist  him  as  to  loan.     LovelJ  to  Franklin,  July  11,  1780. 
About  to  sail  for  Holland.     Lorell  to  Jay,  July  11,  1780. 
To  Committee.     Announces  his  capture  at  sea  and  seizure  of  his  papers  and  the 

lioliteness  with  which  he  was  treated  by  his  captors,  Sept.  14, 1780. 
His  uon-arrival.     Adams  to  Congress,  Sept.  19,  1780;  Franklin  to  Dumas,  Oct.  21, 

1780. 
Prisoner  in  the  Tower ;  shut  off  from  visitors  ;  sick  and  emaciated  ;  denied  paper; 
treated  with  brutality ;  statements  contained  in  letter.     Dumas  to  Congress, 
Oct.  6,  1780;  Adams  to  Congress,  Oct.- 24,  1780. 
Capture  of  his  papers  and  their  disclosure  at  Holland  ;  severity  of  his  treatment. 

Adams  to  Congress,  Oct.  27,  1780. 
Franklin's  interposition  for.     Franklin  to  Cooper,  Nov.  7,  1780. 


152  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Laurens,  H.— Coutinuecl. 

Discovery  and  transmissiou  of  papers.     Dana  to  Jackson,  Nov.  11, 1780. 

Contradictory  account  a.s  to  his  treatment.     Vernon  to   Cooper,  Nov. '^7,  1780; 
Cooper  to  Franllin,  Nov.  29,  1780. 

Greater  liberty  allowed  to,  in  Tower.     FranJcUn  to  Congress,  Dec.  3,  1780. 

From  Congress,  Dec.  23,  1780. 

(See  Congress  (or  Huntington)  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 

Fro/ii  Congress,  Dec.  27,  1780. 

(See  Congress  (or  Huntington)  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 

From  Adams,  May  8,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 

From  Vergennes,  May  10,  1781. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Laiirens,  same  date.) 

From  Franklin,  Nov.  8,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 

Funds  supplied  to.     Franklin  to  Hodgson,  Nov.  19,  1781;   Franklin  to  Vanghan, 
Nov.  22,  1781. 

To  Congress.     Inlniman  treatment  for  fifteen  moutLs  in  Tower,  Dec.  20,  1781. 

His  position  as  to  li is  treatment  in  the  Tower;  relief  sent  to  him  by  Franklin; 
general  review  of  his  case,     Franklin  to  Miss  Laurens,  Dec.  29,  1781. 

Difficulties  arising  in  Holland  from  seiznre  of  his  papers.     Adams  to  Liringston, 
Feb.  21,  1782. 

Letter  of  Burke  as  to  ;  position  of.     Burke  to  Franklin,  Feb.  28,  1783. 

Congratulations' on  his  release.     Franklin  to  Laurens,  Apr.  12,  1782. 

Releas(!  of.     X«  Fayette  to  Washington,  Apr.  12,  1782. 

To  Franklin,  May  17,  1782  (given  in  Franklin's  journal,  unler  date  of  July  1,  1782). 

To  Congress.     Treatment  Avhen  in  the  Tower;  final  release;  La  Fayette's  course 
as  to,  May  30,  1782. 

Notice  of.     Adams  to  Livingston,  June  9,  1782. 

To  Franklin.     His  position  at  the  Tower  ;  exchange,  June  24, 1782. 

Exchange  of.    Franklin  to  Livingston,  June  29,  1782. 

In  peace  negotiations,     (^ce  Franklin's  Journal,  under  date  of  July  1,  1782.) 

From  Franklin,  July  2,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 

From  Adams,  Aug.  15,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.     Construction  of  British  commission  ;  dangers  to  be  avoided  ;  does  not 
desire  to  act  on  commission,  Aug,  17,  1782. 

From  Adams,  Aug.  18,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 

To  Congress.     Plans  for  return  to  America  ;  may  remain  abroad  for  some  months; 
Franklin's  attention,  Sept.  5,  1882. 

Franklin's  attitude  to  him,  given  in  note  to  last  dispatch. 

From  Livingston,  Sept.  17,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 

Renewal  of  his  appointment  as  commissioner  of  peace.     Congress,  Sept.  17,  1782. 

Addressed  as  such  by  Livingston,  Sept.  17,  1782. 

Proposed  recall  of,  based  on  his  alleged  compromising  letter  to  the  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  Sept.  19,  1782. 

Madison's  account  of.     Madison  to  Randolph,  Sept.  24,  1782.     (See  also  Introduc- 
tion, ^  173.) 

Attendance  wanted  at  Paris.    Adams  to  Laurens,   Nov.  5,   1782  ;    Livingston  to 
Laurens,  Nov.  8,  1782. 

His  embarassing  position  arising  from  the  alleged  petition  to  the  House  of  Com- 
mons.    Livingston  to  Adams,  Nov.  18,  1782.     (See  Introduction,  ^  173.) 

To  Cornwall  is.     As  to  exchange,  Dec.  9,  1782. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  153 

Laurexs,  II.— Continncd. 

To  Secretary  of  Fore'upt  A  fairs.     Explanation  of  his  continued  residence  in  Eng- 
land ;  has  been  in  continuous  service  of  bis  country  for  eight  years  ;  acknowl- 
edges paymenfc  for  his  services,  Dec.  15,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Bad  health  and  continued  residence  abroad,  Jan.  G,  1783. 
To  Franklin.      Views  as  to  definitive  treaty,  Mar,  G,  1783. 
From  Adani^,  Mar.  12,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Lanrens,  same  date.) 
To  Secrctarif  of  Foreign  Affairs.     As  to  English  affairs,  Mar.  15,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     Position  of  English  administration,  Mar.  17,  1783. 
To  Adanii.     Views  of  English  politics.  Mar.  26,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     Commercial  bill  in  Parliament;  mediation,  Apr.  4,  1783. 
To  Livingsto)!.     Reporting  conversation  with  Fox  favorable  to  commercial  treaty, 

A]>r.  5,  10,  1783. 
From  Livingston.     As  to  permission  to  return  to  the  United  States,  May  8,  1783. 
To  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs.     Narrates  proceedings  as  to  delinitive  treaty, 

.Tune  17,  1T83. 
To  Commissioners.     luformation  as  to  his  proceedings  in  England,  June  17, 20, 1783. 
To  Secret arg  for  Foreign  Affairs,  June  27,  1783. 
From  Franklin,  July  G,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lanrens,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin,  July  17,  1783. 
To  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs.  July  17,  1783. 
To  same.     Proceeds  to  Paris,  Aug.  2,  1783. 
To  L.  E.  Morris.     As  to  accounts,  Aug.  9,  1783. 

To  United  States  ministers  at  Paris.  Gives  conversation  with  Fox,  when  the  latter 
declared  that  the  provisional  articles  would  form  the  delinitive  treaty,  and 
that  it  was  intended  to  exclude  American  ships  from  the  West  Indian  trade, 
and  that  an  American  minister  was  desirable  at  London  ;  arrival  in  London 
of  Carberry  and  Sullivan,  Aug.  9,  1783. 
To  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs.     As  to  his  salary ;  proposes  to  visit  the  south  of 

France,  where  his  brother  has  resided  for  six  years,  Aug.  9, 1783. 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  21,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lanrens,  same  date.) 
To  United  States  ministers  at  Paris.    Notices  definitive  treaty  and  comments  on  bad 

cbaracter  of  Jennings,  Sept.  11, 1783. 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  6,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Laurens,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  12,  1784. 

(See  Franklin  to  Laurens,  same  date.)" 
From  Hartley,  March  2G,  1784. 

(See  Hartley  from  Laurens,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.  British  hardness  to  the  United  States;  mischief  done  by  the ''loy- 
alists," probabilities  of  a  new  war,  Apr.  24,  30,  1784. 
Laurens,  J. — 

His  diplomatic  servijes.     Introdnction,  ^S  174. 

Elected  secretary  of  legation  to  Versailles  (but  declines);  proceedings  of  Con- 
gress of  Sept.  28,  1779. 
Instructions  to,  as  special  minister  to  Paris,  Dec.  23,  1780. 
Additional  instructions  to,  Dec.  27,  1780. 

To  Congress.     In  regard  to  obtaining  supplies  asks  discretion,  Jan.  3,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Efforts  to  get  a  crew  for  the  Alliance  ;  French  army  and  navy  de- 
manding supplies,  Feb.  4,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Efforts  to  get  a  crew  for  the  Alliance  ;  embarked  to-day,  Feb.  7,  1781. 


154  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Laurens,  J. — Continued. 

To  Congress.  Numbers  and  destination  of  Frencli  fleet;  war  with  En^^land  very- 
injurious  to  Holland  ;  British  privateer  having  illegally  taken  a  Venetian  ship 
captured  and  the  ship  released  ;  fears  for  safety  of  Palfrey,  Mar.  11,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Interview  with  the  Marquis  de  Castries ;  the  kiug  of  France  refuses 
a  loan  ;  gives  6,000,000  to  the  United  States;  the  King  refuses  to  accept  the 
offer  of  mediation  unless  his  allies  do  ;  Congress  is  requested  to  instruct  their 
delegates  on  this  point ;  memorial  to  Vergennes  ;  letter  to  same;  urges  that 
supplies  be  sent  by  France  ;  fleets  of  the  powers,  Mar.  20,  17dl. 

To  Washington.  As  to  his  application  to  France  for  further  aid;  as  to  plans  of 
coming  campaign,  Mar.  24,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Loan  promised  ;  cost,  etc.,  of  supplies  ;  French  will  establish  naval 
superiority  in  America;  fleet  on  its  way;  extracts  from  intercepted  letters, 
Apr.  9,  1781. 

To  Washington.  Vergennes  has  promised  to  guaranty  the  ten  million  Dutch  loan  ; 
will  take  action  as  to  supplies,  Apr,  11, 1781. 

To  Vergennes.  Supplies  insufficient ;  requests  amount  of  loan  be  immediately  ad- 
vanced ;  necessity  of  naval  superiority,  Apr.  18,  1781. 

To  Congress.     Remittance  of  specie  and  of  supplies  ;  the  ship  Indian,  Apr.  24,  1781. 

To  the  Director-General  of  Finance.  Urging  a  larger  remittauco  of  specie,  Apr. 
29,  1781. 

From  Adams.  As  to  his  recent  action  in  Europe  ;  Major  Jackson's  agency.  May 
8,  1781.     Efficiency  of,  noticed.     Franklin  to  Congress,  May  14,1781. 

Excellence  of  his  character  and  his  comparative  success  in  his  mission  to  France. 
Franklin  to  La  Fayette,  May  14,  1781. 

To  Congress.     His  disappointment  in  the  failure  of  his  final  attempts  at  raising- 
funds.  May  15,  1781. 
(See  Vergennes  to  Lanrens,  May  10,  1781.) 

Vergennes  declines  to  pay  for  his  credit  purchases  in  Holland,  which  he  ought  to 
have  paid  for  in  cash,  June  8,  1781. 

Position  of  his  accounts  in  Holland.     Frankliji  to  Vergennes,  June  10,  1781. 

Has  disbursed  all  of  six  million  loan.     Franklin  to  Adams,  June  30,  1781. 

Difficulties  arising  from  his  engagements,  Franklin  to  Jackson.     July  6,  1781. 

Wa^nt  of  final  success  In  his  financial  mission  in  1781.  Franklin  to  Carmichael, 
Aug.  24,  1781, 

Arrival  with  ten  store-ships.     Monis  to  Franklin,  Aug.  28,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Reporting  his  special  mission  to  France;  urged  larger  contribu- 
tions than  those  received  through  Franklin,  but  fruitlessly  ;  the  arguments 
he  used  to  Vergennes  ;  visited  Castries  ;  Vergennes  stated  that  the  King  will 
be  security  for  ten  million  Dutch  loan  ;  France  can  not  provide  full  convoys ; 
arranged  with  Captain  Gillon,  of  the  South  Corolina,  for  further  conveyance  of 
specie;  prospects  of  further  supplies  faint,  Sept.  2,  7,  1781. 

To  Congress.  Regards  retaliation  as  the  only  mode  of  procuring  relief  in  the 
case  of  Henry  Laurens ;  sends  further  accounts,  and  states  the  amounts  for 
which  he  was  obliged  to  draw  on  Franklin,  Sept.  6,  1781. 

Comparative  ill  success  of  his  mission.     Laurens  to  Congress,  Sept.  21, 1781. 

From  Franklin.     As  to  mismanagement  in  purchase  of  supplies  in  Holland  and 
their  shipment  through  Gillon,  Nov.  9,  1781. 
Lauzux.     Character.     Introduction,  t^  78.     Congratulatory  and  complimentary  ad- 
dress to.     Congress,  May  1,  1783. 
Le  Brun  from  Franklin,  Oct.  25,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Le  Brun,  same  date.) 
Lecky— 

His  view  of  Washingron's  military  genius.     Introduction,  'S  12, 

Opinion  of  Adams.     Ibid.,  ^  132. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX,  155 

Lee,  Arthur— 

Outline  of  history.     Ibid,  ^  136. 

Position  in  Enj^land  prior  to  1770.     Ibid.,  '^  137. 

His  connection  with  Wilkes.     Ibid.,  §  138. 

His  opposition  to  Washington  and  Franklin.     Ibid.,  vS  141. 

His  relations  to  Beanmarchais.     Ibid  ,  '^  142. 

His  English  connections  in  1776.     Ibid.,  ^>  143. 

His  *' militia''  diplomacy  and  its  consequences.     Ibid.,  ^  (19)  144. 

Prevalent  opinion  as  to  his  differences  with  Franklin.     Ibid.,  ^  14.^). 

Effect  of  ''Junius"  on  his  style.     Ibid.,  '^  147. 

So  as  to  his  treatment  of  the  Scotch.     Ibid.,  ^^  148. 

His  case  against  Erankliu.     Ibid.,  '^  14'.>. 

His  betrayal  by  favorites.     Ihid.,^  150. 

Decoy  news  sent  by  him.     Ibid.,  \S  151. 

Suspicious  of  Franklin  and  Vergennes.     Ibid.,  v)  152. 

Powerful  family  influence.     Ibid.,  '^  153. 

His  course  on  returning  to  America.     Ibid.,  \S  154. 

His  relatioMs  to  Franklin.     Ibid.,  ^  106, 126, 149. 

Charge  of  corruption  against  Dumas.     Ibid.,  ^  185. 

His  diplomatic  failures.     Ibid.,  \^  19. 

Mistake  as  to  Deane's  wealth.     Ibid.,  ^  160. 

Question  of  memory  with  Beanmarchais.     Ibid.,  ^^^  G),  142. 

Presents  petition  of  1775.     Franklin  to  Thomson,  Feb.  5,1775. 

From  Committee,  to,  Dec.  12,  1775. 

(See  Committee,  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
Dumas  will  correspond  with  and  take  charge  of  his  letters  to  Congress.     Franklin 

to  Dumas,  Dec.  19, 1775. 
To  itneertaiu  correqyoudcnt,  nuder  name  of   Golden;  importance  of  placing' New 

England  men  at  the  head  of  affairs;  predictions  as  to  British  campaign; 

ol)jects  to  Franklin  and  Jay  on  committee  of  correspondence  (doubts  as  to 

the  channel  through  which  those  letters  were  received,  Feb.  13,  1776).     (See 

introduction,  ^  141.) 
To  same  correspondent.     Criticises  Lord  Sackvillc;  objects  again  to  Franklin  and 

Jay;  suspects  Dr.  Church,  Feb.  14,  1776. 
To  Mrs.  Bache.     Makes  further  predictions  as  to  British  campaign ;  Britain  re- 
quires unconditional  submission,  Mar.  19,  1776. 
To  Colden.     Makes  further  predictions  as  to   British  campaign,  Apr.   15,   1776. 

(See  introduction,  §  141.) 
Under  name  of  Mary  Johnston,  to  "Hortalez."    Explaining  why  tobacco  could  not 

be  at  once  shipped,  May  23,  1776;  June  6,  1776.     (See  introduction,  v^  61,  if. 

142.) 
To  Committee.     Speculations  as  to  English  and  French  policy  ;  criticises  Spanish 

nunister  ;  denounces  the  Scotch  and  refugees  ;  warns  as  to  "Parson"  Madison, 

Joseph  Reed,  and  Brook  Watson,  June  3,  1776. 
From  Beaumarchais,  June,  6,  1776. 

(See  Beanmarchais  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Beanmarchais.    As  to  exchange  of  tobacco  for  supplies,  June  14,  1776. 
From  Beanmarchais,  June  26,  1776. 

(See  Beanmarchais  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Dumas.     As  to  American  affairs  and  the  timidity  of  France,  July  6,  1776. 
To  Dumas.    Criticises  recent  publications;  Adam  Smith  is  a  "Scotchman,  and  an 

enemy  to  America;"   decisive  news  expected,  Aug.  12,  1776. 
According  to  Vergennes,  has  put  too  much  conlidence  in  Count  Lauraguais.    Deane 

to  Committee,  Aug.  18,  1776. 
(See  Lee  to  Beanmarchais,  May  23,1776.) 


156  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Lee,  Arthur — Continued. 

His  visit  to  Paris  in  August,  1776,  an  unwelcome  surprise  to  Deane,  Deaue  to 
Vergennes,  Aug.  22,  1776. 

To  Dumas.     Political  torpor  in  England;  Sandwich  and  Germain,  Sept. 23, 1776. 

May  treat  with  European  powers.     Proceedings  in  Congress,  Oct.  16,  1776. 

Appointed  commissioner  to  Paris.  Morris  and  Franklin  to  Lee,  Oct.  23,  1776; 
saine  to  Dearie,  Oct.  24,  1776. 

To  Dumas.     Survey  of  English  politics,  Nov.  15,  1776. 

To  Shelburne.  Bids  farewell ;  expr'^sses  his  superior  attachment  to  America,  and 
is  about  to  join  in  Paris  '^onr  Pater  Patria-'^  and  Mr.  Deane,  Dec.  23, 1776. 

To  Committee.  Accepts  and  enters  on  ];is  duties  as  commissioner  at  Paris ;  "  Hor- 
talez;"  arrangements  made  with  him  were  settled  w4th  Deane,  and  the  sup- 
plies were  what  were  promised,  Dec.  31,  1776. 

Draught  of  pledge  to  France,  Feb,  2,  1777. 

Proposes  to  go  to  Madrid.  Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb.  6, 1777.  Lee  to  Commit- 
tee, Feb.  11,  1777. 

To  Committee.     Supplies ;  British  plans,  Feb.  14,  18,  1777. 

Fr?m  Gardoqui.     Advised  not  to  go  to  Madrid,  Feb.  17,  1777. 
(See  Gardoqui  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 

The  erroneousuess  of  his  information  as  to  British  campaigns.  See  letters  uiuler 
date  of  Feb.  14, 1776 ;  Feb.  .'>,  11, 14, 18, 1777.     See  also  Introduction,  ^v"*  1-"^1  ff)- 

To  Commissioner's.     His  journey  to  Spain,  Feb.  26,  1777. 

To  Grimaldi.  Urges  on  Spanish  Government  that  he  should  be  permitted  to  visit 
Madrid,  Mar.  5, 1777. 

To  Commiftee.     Proceedings  in  his  mission  to  Spain,  etc.,  Mar.  8, 1777. 

To  Florida  Blanca.     Api)eal  to.  Mar.  17, 1777. 

To  Congress.     Explanation  of  course  in  Spain;  foreign  affairs.  Mar.  18, 1777. 

From  Franklin.     Instructions  to,  in  Jan.,  1777,  Mar.  21, 1777. 

To  Committee.  Returns  to  Paris,  and  reports  unfavorable  disposition  of  Spain, 
Apr.  2,  1777. 

From  Gardoqui,  Apr.  28,  1777. 
(See  Gardoqui  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 

To  Gardoqui.     As  to  public  affairs,  May  8,  1777. 

To  Schulenherg.     Proposing  to  visit  Berlin,  May  8,  1777. 

To  Committee.     Prepares  to  go  to  Berlin,  May  13,  1777. 

Froui  Scliulenherg.     Advised  to  postpone  his  visit,  May  20,  1777. 

To  Scliulenherg.     Announcing  his  arrival  at  Berlin,  June  .5,  1777. 

To  Scliulenherg ,     Sends  a  statement  of  value  of  American  trade,  June  7,  1777. 

From  Scliulenherg.  Informed  that  his  residence  at  Berlin,  as  a  mere  individual, 
would  not  be  disagreeable  to  the  King,  June  9,  1777. 

To  Scliulenherg.     Mentioning  rates  of  insurance  to  America,  June  10,  1777. 

To  Committee.     Position  of  affairs  at  Berlin,  June  II,  1777. 

To  Franklin.     "Apathy"  at  Berlin,  June  15,  1777. 

From  Scliulenherg.     Dilatory  course  of  Prussia,  June  18,  1777. 

To  Scliulenherg.  Ashing  permission  for  American  cruisers  to  enter  Prussian  ports, 
June  20,  1777.     Declined  by  Scliulenherg,  June  26,  1777. 

To  Commissioners.     Reports  stealing  of  his  papers,  June  28,  1777. 

(J.  Q.  Adams'  and  other  comments  thereon,  June  28,  1777,  note.     As  to  this 
theft,  see  Introduction,  ^  91,  144,  150,  193.) 

To  King  of  Prussia.     As  to  alliance,  June  29,  1777. 

Tlio  King's  notion  of  the  theft,  June  30,  1777. 

To  the  King.     As  to  the  theft,  July  1,  1777. 

From  the  King.     Referring  him  to  Schulenberg,  July  2,  1777. 

To  Commissioners.     Reporting  return  of  papers,  July  6,  1777. 

To  Congress.     Discussing  his  situation,  July  29,  1777. 

From  Committee,  Aug.  8,  1777. 


PKELIMINARY    INDEX.  157 

Lee,  Arthur— Coutinued. 

To  Schulenherg.     Suggestions  as  to  Prussian  commerce,  Aug.  13,  1777. 

To  Ganloqui.     Disappointed  at  action  of  Spain,  Aug.  18,  1777. 

To  Cominitlee.     Kcuiarks  as  to  decline  of  Englisli  coinnierco,  Sept.  9,  1777. 

To  (rardoqui.     Supposed  settlement  as  to  supplies,  Sept.  2'),  1777. 

To  Committee.     Gives  news  from  Spain  as  to  supplies  and  declares  Beaumarcbais' 

supplies  to  have  been  gratuitous,  Oct.  G,  1777. 
From  Sclmlenberg.      Informed  that  Prussia  will  not  receive  American  privateers, 

Oct.  8,  1777. 
Reply.     A.  Lee  to  JSchulciibeyg,  Oct.  23,  1777. 

To  Sclmlenberg.     Announces  W.  Lee's  appointment  to  Berlin,  Nov.  13,  1777. 
To  GardoiiHi.     Kemarks  as  to  supplies  and  prizes,  Nov.  15,  1777. 
To  Committee.     Reports  refusal  of  Prussia  to  receive  privateers  and  also  suspen- 
sion of  supplies  from  Spain,  Nov.  27,  1777. 
From  Schuleiibeyf/,  Nov.  28,  1777. 

(See  Schulvnberg  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Berkenhout.     Commissioners  may  receive  but  can  not  make  peace  overtures, 

Dec.  3,  1777. 
To  Congress.     Reporting  as  to  goods  forwarded  to  care  of  Gerry,  Dec.  8,  1777. 
To  Congress.     As  to  excesses  of  American  privateers;  recommends  Jennings  and 

Digges  for  employment,  Dec.  8,  1777. 
To  Aranda.     Political  relations,  Dec.  9,  1777. 
To  Schulenberg.      Is  advised  of  bis  brother's  rejection  by  Prussia  as  minister, 

Dec.  11,  1777. 
To  SJwIbunie.     As  to  British  enormities,  Dec.  14,  1777o 
From  Schahnberg,  Dec.  18,  1777. 

(See  Schulenberg  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
From  Schulenberg.     Prussia  refuses  transit  to  British  troops,  Dec.  23,  1777. 
To  Committee.     As  to  Spain  and  Prussia,  Jan.  5,  1778. 
From  Schulenberg,  Jan.  16,  1778. 

(See  Schulenberg  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Objecting  to  twelfth  article  of  treatj^  of  1778,  Jan.  30,  1778. 
From  Franklin.     Agreeing  to  dropping  article,  Feb.  1,  1778. 
Gerard  to  Commissioners.     Not  assenting  to  change  from  want  of  time,  Feb.  2, 

1778. 
To  Schulenberg.     As  to  condition  of  war,  Feb.  2, 1778. 

To  Committee.     Narrative  of  proceedings  in  Spain;  criticises  jiroceedings  of  col- 
leagues, Feb.  10,  1778. 
To  Committee.     Statement  as  to  Beaumarcbais'  gratuities,  Feb.  15, 1778. 
To  Franklin.     Complains  that  he  was  not  advised  of  Simeon  Deane's  sailing  with 
dispatches;  considers  the  action  of  France  '^covert"  and  equivocal,  Feb.  26, 
1778. 
From  Franklin  and  Deane.     Explaining  their  position,  Feb.  27,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  and  Deane  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Supposed  promise  of  Spanish  loan,  Feb.  28,  1778. 
From  Franklin.     Explaining  difficulties  as  to  opportunities  for  letters.  Mar.  17, 

1778. 
To  Franklin.     His  reception  in  Spain  still  postponed,  Mar.  27,  1778. 
To  Franklin  and  Deane.     Calls  for  settlement  of  accounts.  Mar.  31,  1778. 
From  Franklin.     In  reply,  Apr.  1,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
From  Gardoqui  ^'  Co.,  Apr.  1,  1778. 

(See  Gardoqui  tj"-  Co.  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Gerard.     Giving  letters  of  introduction,  Apr.  1;  1778. 
From  Gerard.     Acknowledging,  etc.,  Apr.  }    1778. 
(See  Gerard  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 


158  PRELlMliNAKY    INDEX. 

Lee,  Arthur— Continued. 

To  Franklin.     Complaining  of  having  Gerard's  departure  concealed  from  biui  and 

also  of  otLer  concealments,  Apr.  2,  1778. 
To  Congress.     Complaiuts  of  Deane's  accounts,  Apr.  .5,  1778. 
From.  Franklin,  Apr.  6,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Committee.     Complains  of  Leing  misinformed  of  Deane's  departure  and  sends 

copies  of  memorial  to  Holland,  Apr.  8,  1778. 
To  Committee.     Complaining  of  destruction  of  his  letters  and  conspiracy  against 

him,  Apr.  14,  1778. 
To  Vergcnncs      Warning  against  Hartley,  Apr.  24,  1778. 
From  Vergennes.     Reply  to  foregoing,  Apr.  24,  1778. 

(See  Vergennes  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners  and  Committee.     Complains  that  Bancroft  is  a  stock-jobber  an  I 

communicates  information  to  England,  Apr.  26,  1778. 
To  Committee.     Suspects  Folger,  Carmichael,  and  Deane,  May  9,  1778. 
From  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  May  14,  1778. 

(See  B.  II.  Lee  et  at.  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
From  Izard,  May  18,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Committee.     As  to  forwarding  goods;  complains  of  Franklin's  and  William's 

misconduct.  May  20,  1778. 
To  Committee.     As  to  forwarding  goods.  May  23,  1778. 
To  Izard.     Criticises  treaty  of  alliance,  May  2^,  1778. 
To  Committee.     Complains   of  his  colleagues;  censure  of  Deane,  Williams,  nn<i 

Franklin,  June  1,  1778. 
To  Dumas.     Reflections  on  French  flt-et ;  views  as  to  Holland,  Juno  4,  1778. 
To  Committee.     Foreign  prospects;  criticises  Williams,  June  9^  1778. 
To  Vergennes.     Acknowledges  explanations  as  to  twelfth  article  of  conmicrcial 

treaty,  June  14,  1778. 
To  Committee.     Information  as  to  European  movements,  June  15,  July  1,  1778. 
To  Florida  Blanca.     As  to  loan,  July  18,  1778. 

To  Committee.     Conm\cuts  on  pending  negotiations,  July  28,  29,  1778. 
To  Commiltte.     Notices  charges  against  Thornton,  and  states  th-it  his  colleagues 

give  information  to  stock-jobbers,  Aug.  7,1778. 
From  Gardnjiu.     Saying  he  can  not  get  money  in  Spain,  Aug.  13,  17;8. 
From  Gardoqni,  Aug.  20,  1778. 

(See  (iardoqiii  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     European  jiolitics,  Aug.  21,  31,  1778. 
To  Gardoqni.     Presses  for  money  and  treaty,  Aug.  27,  Sept.  1,  1778. 
To  Congress.     Announces   remittances;  criticises  accounts  of  J.  Williams;  has 

dismissed  Major  'ihornton ;  appointed  Hezekiah  Ford  in  his  place,  Sept.  9, 

1778.     (See  same  to  same,  Sept.  30,  1778.) 
From  Gardoqni.     Asks  what  security  he  can  give  for  loan,  Sept.  28,  1778. 

(See  Gardoqni  to  .1.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Gard'-qni.     Complains  that  Vergennes'  charges  against  him  are  undeserved  ; 

complains  that  Spain  will  not  treat,  Oct.  G,  1778. 
To  Adams.     Offers  a  room  in  his  house  for  legation  papers  and  business,  Oct.  G, 

1778. 
From  Adams.     This  offer  declined,  and  Lee   invited  to  dwell    with  the   other 

connnissioners,  Oct.  10,  1778. 
To  Vergennes.     Urges  Vergennes  to  press  Spain  to  treat  with  the  United  States 

Oct.  12,  1778. 
To  Adams.     Declines  to  move  to  Passy,  b   t  invites  legation  to  his  own  house, 

Oct.  12,  1778. 


FKELIMINAKV    INDEX.  159 

Lee,  Arthur— Coutiuued. 

From  Verucnnes.     Advisiii*;'  him  not  to  press  matters  iu  Madrid,  Oct.  17,  1778. 
To  Schiilciibcrf/.     Cojn]>laiijiiig  of  his  being  cheated  as  to  purchase  ol"  arms  in 

Trnssia,  Oct.  til,  1778. 
Frou)  Vcr(jc)iues,  Oct.  24,  1778. 

(See  J'crgoines  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Committee.     As  to  foreign  atfairs,  Nov.  4,  15,  1778. 
To  Committee.     Giving  erroneous  information  as  to  proposed  British  campaign. 

Nov.  25,  1778.     (Sec  Introduction,  v^^n  150 ./T-) 
To  Gardoqui.     Difficulty  in  obtaiuiug  funds  for  i)urcliases  in  Spain^  Dec.  4, 1778. 
To  Cominiltce.     Views  as  to  European  affairs,  Dec.  5,  1778. 
To  Florida  Blanca.     On  British  cruelties,  Dec.  17,  1778. 

To  fSchulenherg.    Defective  Prussian  supplies;  Britisli  barbarities,  Dec.  25,  1778. 
To  Florida  Blanca.     Britisli  barbarities,  Dec.  27,  1778. 

To  Vcrgtnncs.    Reports  application  of  Berkeuhout  for  an  interview,  Jan.  '.\,  1771), 
(Vergennes  replies  that  it  is  inexpedient.   Vergennesto  A.  Lee,  Jan.  4,  177'J  ;  A.  Lee 

to  Committee,  Jan.  5,  1779.     See  Introduction,  *iS204.) 
To  Committee.     Views  as  to  European  atfairs  and  criticisms  on  his  colleagues, 

Jan.  5,  1779. 
From  Committee,  Jan.  (5,  1779. 

(See  Lee  to  Committee,  same  date.) 
To  Berkenliout.     Saying  that  independence  is  a  condition  of  peace,  Jan.  7,  1779. 
From  Vergennes,  Jan.  7,  1779. 

(See  Vergennes  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Vergennes.     Informing  him  of  this,  Jan.  8,  1779. 
From  Vergennes.     Reply,  Jan.  10,  1779. 
To  Committee.    Discussing  European  affairs,  Jan.  15,  1779. 
From  Price,  Jan.  18,  1779. 

(See Price  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
Defended  by  Adams.     Adams  to  Vergennes,  Fch.  11,  1779. 
From  Vergennes,  Feb.  15,  1779, 

(See  Vergennes  to  Lee,  same  date.) 
His  interference  causes  failure  iu  purchases  for  Virginia.     Franklin  to  Rcnrg,  Feb. 

16,  1779. 
To  Franklin.     Denouncing  Deane,  Feb.  18,  1779. 
From  Franklin.     Calling  for  papers,  Feb.  18,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lee,  same  date.) 
Charges  against,  discussed  by.     Adams  to  Lovell,  Feb.  20,  1779. 
Franklin.     In  reply  to  Lee's  call,  etc.,  Feb.  21,  1779. 

To  Congress.     Complaining  of  Franls:lin,-Deane,  and  Williams,  Feb.  25,  Mar.  7, 1779. 
From  Franklin.     Replying  as  to  papers  and  calling  on  him  to  substantiate  his 

charges  against  Williams,  Mar.  13,  1779. 
To  Franklin.     In  rei)ly,  Mar.  19,  1779. 
From  Franklin.     (Two  letters).  Mar.  27,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
As  to  difficulties  from  repudiation  of  contract  with  Acosta.     Franklin  to  W.  Lee, 

Apr.  2,  1779. 
To  Congress.     As  to  expected  raid  on  Connecticut  River,  Ai)r.  (>,  1779.     (Sec  In- 
troduction, ^  151.) 
Difficulties  as  to  his  purchase  of  stores.     Franklin  to  Johnson,  Apr.  8,  1779. 
Fails  to  sustain  his  case  against  Williams.     Franklin  to  Williams,  Apr.  8,  1779. 
Action  of  Congress  as  to  his  recall ;  States  equally  divided,  May  3,  1779. 
To  Committee.    Discusses  affairs  in  Europe,  Apr.  22,  May  21,  1778. 
To  Committee.     As  to  Petrie's  charges,  Apr.  IB,  26,  1779. 
Managed  the  Spanish  loan  by  himsslf.     Franklin  to  Committee,  May  26,  1779. 


IGO  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Lee,  Arthur — Continued. 

To  Congress.     Resignation  of  commission,  May  31,  1779. 

To  Congress.     Franklin  does  not  reply  to  his  attacks.     Franklin  to  LoveU,  June  2, 

1779. 
Sends  memorial  to  Bache,  June  G,  1779. 

To  Aranda  for  court  of  Spain.     Giving  advice,  June  6,  1779. 
Writes  to  Adams  for  a  certiiicato  as  to  bis  character,  June  8,  and  Adams'  reply, 

June  9,  1779. 
From  LoveU,  June  13,  1779. 

(See  LoveU  to  Lee,  same  date.) 
Lovell's  views  as  to.     LoveU  to  Adams,  June  13,  1779. 
To  Committee.     Reports  Spain's  declaration  of  war,  June  21,  1779. 
To  Florida  Blanca.     As  to  Spain's  action,  June  G,  27,  1779. 
From  Florida  Blanca,  Aug.  G,  1779. 

(See  Florida  Blanca  to  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.    As  to  applying  to  A^ergenuesto  address  court  of  Spain,  Aug.  14, 1779, 
To  Committee.     As  to  foreign  affairs,  Aug.  10,24,  1779. 
To  Committee.     Asks  to  bo  beard,  Sept.  10,  1779. 

To  Congress.     Protests  against  action  of  Congress  in  relation  to.  Sept.  19,  1779. 
Succeeded  by  Jay.     Proceedings  of  Congress,  Sept.  27,  1779.     LoveU  to  Adams, 

Sept.  27,  1779. 
From  Franklin.     His  return  to  America  advised  by  Franklin,  Sept.  30,  1779, 
To  Committee.     Announces  Rodney's  movements  and  complains  of  Franklin's  rt  - 

fusing  him  funds,  Oct.  13,  1779. 
From  LoveU.     Advising  him  of  bis  recall,  Oct.  13,  1779. 
To  Committee.     English  politics,  Oct.  21,  1779. 
To  Committee.     Instructions  and  salary  asked;   yjlans  of  the  French;   affairs  in 

Great  Britain;  Spanish  ultimatum;  English  manifesto,  Nov.  6,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Changes  iti  British  ministry  ;  Franklin's  refusal  to  furnish  money, 

Nov.  30,  Dec.  8,  1779. 
To  Committee.     Remains  till  Jay's  arrival,  Dec.  25,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Takes  leave  of  French  court;   announces  a  Brilisb  expedition  to 

take  place  in  two  months  for  Boston,  Jan.  19,  1780. 
From  Jay,  Jan.  2G,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Not  acceptable,  according  to  Carmicbael,  to  France,  Mar.  15,  1780. 
To  Jay.     Recommends  Gardoqui,  and  speaks  well  of  Spain,  Mar.  17,  1780. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  31,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
His  hostility  to  Franklin  unon   his  taking  leave.     Franklin  to  Carmichacl,  Mar. 

31,  1780. 
Denounces   and  challenges  Gerard  for  advising  his  removal.     Introduction,  ^^^ 

145/. 
From  Adams,  May  25, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  A.  Lee,  same  date.) 
His  conduct  on  the  Alliance  may  justify  refusing  him  passage.     Franklin  to  Jones, 

June  17,  1780. 
Hostility  to  Paul  Jones.     Jones  to  Franklin,  June  27,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Has  arrived  in  Philadelphia  and  desires  to  be  heard  if  there  be  any 

charge  against  him,  Oct.  7,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Refers  to  foreign  affairs  and  the  unlikelihood  of  obtaining  ade- 
quate loans  and  makes  a  bitter  attack  on  Franklin,  Dec.  4,  1780. 
His  unconciliatory  course  to  France.      Vcrgennes  to  lAizcrne,  Feb.  14,  1781. 
His  intrigues  against  Washington  and  Franklin.     Carmichael  to  jyankUn,  Feb. 
.    28,  1781. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  161 

Lee,  Arthuk  — Contiuued. 

His  coudiicfc  ill  respect  to  the  sailini;  of  the  Alliance  in  June,  1780.     Jones  to  Ad- 
miralty Committee,  Mar.  13,  1781. 
Contiuued  assaults  ou  Fraukliu,     G.  Morris  to  Franklin,  Sept.  '28,  I78i. 
Views  of,  as  to  course  of  u(i^-otiations  in  Paris  in  separating;  from  France  (<;ivca 

in  Madison's  report  of  debates,  under  date  of  Mar.  18,  19,  1783). 
Lee,  Captain — 

Proceeding's  against,  for  piracy,  at  Madrid.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  17,  1776. 
Released  by  Spain.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  27,  177(5. 
Lee,  Ciiakles — 

Consulted  by  Franklin,  Fob.  11,  177G.     (See  Franklin  to  C.  Lee,  same  date.) 

His  relation  to  R.  H.  Leo  and  his  subsequent  disloyalty.    Introduction,  ^'i^^  10, 11; 

uote  to  Franklin  to  Lee,  Feb.  11,  1776. 
Lee,  R.  H. — 

His  antipathy  to  Franklin  ;  his  sympathy  with  S.  Adams.    Introduction,  ^U3  11, 14/, 

145/. 
Alleged  cabal  against  Washington.     Introduction,  vS  11. 
Referred  to  in  Lee-Colden  correspondence  under  date  of  Feb.  13,  1776. 
His  attendance  in  Congress.     Harrison  to  Morris,  June  8,  1778 
From  Adams,  Aug.  5, 1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Lee,  same  date.) 
Lee,  T.  S.— 

To  Livingston.     As  to  Maryland,  Apr.  19,  1782. 
Lee,  William — 

His  diplomatic  appointments.     Introduction,    sH^  19,  178. 

His  English  political  associations.     Ibid.,  \^  175. 

His  diplomatic  posts.     Ibid.,  ^  176. 

His  commercial  appointments.     Ibid.,  '^  177. 

Charged  with  disclosing  diplomatic  secrets  and  proposed  duel.    Ibid.,  ^  177. 

To  Dumas.     Condition  of  English  politics;  Americans  supposed  to  be  in  want  of 

arms,  Sept.  10, 1776. 
Visit  to  Germany.     A.  Lee  to  Congress,  Apr.  2, 1777. 
From  Congress.    Instructions  as  minister  to  Germany,  July  1,  1777. 

(See  Congress  (Hancock)  to  JV.  Lee,  same  date.  ) 
To  Committee.     Acknowledges  receipt  of  commission  to  Berlin  and  Vienna,  Oct. 

7,  1777. 
To  Thomson.   Acknowledging  his  commission,  Nov.  24, 1777. 
Prussia  will  not  receive  him.     Schulenberg  to  A.  Lee,  Nov.  'Z^,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Schulenberg,  Dec.  11, 1777..) 
To  Thomson.    Saying  he  proposes  to  go  to  Vienna  as  minister,  and  that  Prussia  is 

favorable,  Dec.  18, 1777. 
To  Congress.   As  to  good  effects  of  Burgoyue's  surrender,  Feb.  7, 1778. 
Furnished  1,000  guineas  for  expenses  of  mission  iu  Germany.     Commissioners  to 

Committee,  Feb.  16, 1778. 
To  Congress.   Enters  ou  commercial  agency  on  death  of  Morris.     Commissionei'S  to 

Committee,  Feb.  28, 1778. 
Accredited  both  to  Prussia  and  the  Empire.     Izard  to  Laurens,  Apr.  11, 1778. 
Difficulties  from  his  seizure  of  T.  Morris's  papers.   Franklin  to  Boss,  Apr.  26, 1778, 
From  Committee,  May  14, 1778. 

(See  R.  H.  Lee  et  al.  to  W.  Lee,  same  date.) 
Recognized  as  commercial  agent,  superseding  Williams,  May  25, 1778. 
Court  at  Vienna  refused  to  receive  him.     Izard  to  Laurens,  July  25, 1778. 
To  Congress.     Reports  as  to  German  affairs,  Sept.  12,  19, 1778. 
From  Commissioners.     Declining  to  express  opinion  as  to  his  project  of  treaty  with 

Holland,  Sept.  26,  1878. 
To  Congress.     Forwards  draught  of  treaty  with  Holland,  Oct.  15,  1778. 

11  WH 


162  PRELIMINA.RY    INDEX. 

Lke,  William— Coutinued. 

Drangbt  criticised  by  commissioners,  Oct.  16,  1778. 
From  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  Oct.  28,  1778 

(See  B.  H.  Lee  and  Lovell  to  IV.  Lee,  same  date.) 
Kejected  by  Prussia.     Schidenherg  to  A.  Lee,  Nov.  28,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Jan.  13,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Lee,  same  date.) 
Franklin's  objections  to  paying  salary  of.     Franklin  to  Committee,  Jan.  15,  1779. 
To  Committee.     Reports  plan  of  treaty  with  Amsterdam;    commissioners  decline 

paying  his  further  salary,  Feb.  25,  1779. 
To  Committee.     Criticises  Deane,  Mar.  16,  25,  1779. 
To  Congress.     Defines  his  position  in  reply  to  Deane,  Mar.  16,  1779. 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  2,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  W.  Lee,  same  date.) 
Difficulties  as  to  supplies  purchased  by  him.     Franklin  to  Johnson,  Apr.  8,  1879. 
Objections  to  paying  salary  of.     Franklin  to  Committee,  May  26,  1779. 
To  A.  Lee  and  Izard.     Takes  advice  as  to  his  duty  to  call  on  Prussia  to  acknowl- 
edge independence  of  United  States,  June  22,  1779. 
From  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs.     Recalled  from  Vienna  and  Berlin,  July  17,  1779. 

(See  Lovell  to  W.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Committee.    Views  as  to  foreign  affairs;   refusal  of  Prussia  to  receive  him, 

Sept.  29,  1879. 
To  Adams.     Views  as  to  peace,  Mar.  17,  30,  1780. 
Difficulties  with  Dumas.     Dumas  to  Congress,  Mar.  21,  1780. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  21,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Lee,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  2,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  W.  Lee,  same  date). 
To  Adams.     Censures  Dumas  and  gives  his  opinion  as  to  P'rench  naval  policy, 

July  8,  1780. 
From  Adams,  July  20,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  W.  Lee,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    England  will  send  no  more  troops  this  year  to  America  ;  importance 
of  expelling  British  from  America  this  campaign  ;  secret  proposals  of  peace 
to  France  and  Spain  by  England,  Feb.  10,  1781. 
To  Committee.     As  to  accounts,  Apr.  12,  1781. 
From  Lovell.     Payment  of  balance  due,  Sept.  20,  1781. 
Settlement  of  accounts  with.     Livingston  to  Lee,  July  18,  1782 ;  Franklin  to  Morris, 

Aug.  12,  1782. 
To  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs  (at  Brussels).     Recommends  that  a  minister  to  the 
Emperor  be  sent  to  reside  at  Brussels,  Mar.  31,  1782.     fSee  Introduction,  §  177.) 
''Lees  and  Adamses"  opposition  to  Washington.     Introduction,  ^  11. 

(See  A.Lee  to  Colden,  Feb.  13,  1776.) 
Lee  Brothers.    Position  of,  in  Congress.     Harrison  to  Morris,  June  8,  1778. 

Jay  to  Washington.     Introduction,  §  156. 
Lee  a.  and  Izard.     From  Frarkhlin,  Feb.  19,  1780. 

(Sec  Franklin  to  Lee  and  Izard,  same  date.) 
Legation  papers.     Discussion  as  to  right  to.     (See  Franklin  to  A.  Lee.) 
Letters — 

Foreign,  during  Revolution  ;  difficulty  in  transmitting.    Introduction,  ^S  105. 
Opened  by  foreign  governments.     Introduction,  ^^  105. 

Difficulty  in  receiving  and  transmitting,  by  commissioners  in  Paris.     Commission- 
ers to  Committee,  Mar.  12,  1777. 
(See  Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  9,  1776.) 
Diplomatic,  opened  or  suppressed.     Jay  to  Thomson,  Apr.  29,  1781. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  163 

Letters — Con  tin  ncd . 

Inspection  ot,  wIhmi  in  post.     Franklin  to  Adams,  Nov.  7,  1781 ;  Jay  to  Congress, 
Oct.  13, 18,  1781. 
Lewis,  Francis — 

His  attachment  to  Washington.     lutroiUiction,  ^^  11. 
From  FrankUn,  Ang.  10,  1780. 

(See  Fra)ik]in  to  Lewis,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  17,  1781. 
(See  Franklin  to  Lewis  et  al.,  same  date.) 
Liberalism,  English — 

Emigration  of,  to  the  United  States  before  its  deterioration   under  Cromwell, 

Charles  II,  and  James  II.     Introduction,  t^S  8. 
Leaders  of,  ditference  of  opinion  as  to  Revolution.     Ibid.,  ^^  IU-32. 
Life,  Thomas.      Declines  to  present   petition  of  Congress  to  King.      Franklin  to 

Thomson,  Feb.  5,  1775. 
Lima — 

From  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee,  Apr.  26,  1777. 
(See  Franklin  to  Fonte  de  Lima  (twice),  same  date.) 
LiMOZEN,  A.     To  receive  prizes  at  Havre  de  Grace.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Oct. 

24,  1776. 
Lippincott's  case.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Nov.  9, 1782. 
LiTii— From  Franklin,  Apr.  6,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lith,  same  date.) 
Livingston,  R.  R. — 

Ilis  position  in  revolutionary  politics.     Introduction,  ^  4. 
His  personal  characteristics.     Ii)id.,  '^  180,^. 
His  objections  to  "militia"  diplomacy.     Ibid.,  §  17. 

Change  worked  by  his  appointment  in  management  of  foreign  affairs.    Ibid.,  \>  103. 
To  Jay.     Speaks  of  their  early  friendship;  is  confident  of  ultimate  British  de- 
feat, Aug.  26,  1780. 
Appointed  secretary  for  foreign  affairs,  Aug.  10,  1781. 
Acceptance,  Aug.  25,  1781,  Sept.  23,  1781. 
From  Dana,  Oct.  1,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Combination  of  French  and  American  troops,  by  forced  luarclies, 
at  Yorktown;  investment  of  Cornwallis;  British  fleet  was  defeated  in  Chesa- 
peake Bay  in  attempt  to  relieve  him;  besiegers  opened  their  batteries  on  Oc- 
tober 7,  and  began  tlieir  second  parallel  on  the  11th  ;  sailing  of  fleet  .'vnd 
troops  from  New  York  to  relieve  Cornwallis;  success  of  General  Greene; 
anxiety  to  hear  from  Europe,  Oct.  20,  1781. 
To  Greene.     Congratulating  on  his  Southern  successes,  Oct.  20,  1781. 
To  Dana.     Cornwallis'  surrender;  action  of  French  fleet,  Oct.  22,  1781. 
To  Clinton,  Governor,  Oct.  22,  1781. 

To  Adams.     Cornwallis'  surrender ;  Holland  iiolitics,  Oct.  23,  1781. 
To  Luzerne.     Congratulations  on  Cornwallis'  surrender,  Oct.  21,  1781. 
To  Franklin.     Opposes  accepting  Franklin's  resignation,  Oct.  24,  1871. 
From  Luzerne,  Oct.  25,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston ,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.     The  true  policy  of  the  allies  is  the  defeat  of  Britain  in  America,  and 

to  this  they  should  contribute  their  funds,  Nov.  1,  1781. 
To  Jay.     Superior  economy  in  the  x^rovisioniug  armies  in  America;  a  campaign 
against  the  enemy  here  costs  far  less  than  a  campaign  elsewhere  ;  Spain  should 
be  urged  to  send  her  forces  here,  and  also  contribute  funds  as  her  best  way 
to  success,  Nov.  1,  1781. 
To  Luzerne.     Congratulations;  present  to  De  Grasse  of  two  pieces  of  field  ord- 
nance taken  at  Yorktown,  Nov.  2,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  form  of  correspondence  with  France,  Nov.  6,  1781. 


164  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Livingston,  R.  R. — Coutinaed. 

To  Luzerne.  As  to  memorial  of  Yorktown ;  in  recitals  iu  papers  the  Uuited  States 
concede  to  Franco  the  courtesy  of  being  first  mentioned,  Nov.  C,  17al. 

To  Governors  of  States.  Calling  for  information  as  to  British  spoliations,  Nov.  12, 
178L 

To  Congress.     Importance  of  fixed  salaries  to  foreign  ministers,  Nov.  18,  1781. 

To  Adams.  Domestic  incidents;  disapj)roves  of  Adams  making  i)ublic  his  diplo- 
matic character  before  the  States  were  disposed  to  acknowledge  it ;  he  should 
remain,  until  otherwise  ordered,  simply  a  private  gentleman  ;  Fiauklin  and 
Jay  to  be  joined  with  him  in  commission  of  peace,  Nov.  20,  1781. 

To  Luzerne.     As  to  importance  of  uniformity  in  admiralty  decisions,  Nov.  21,  1781. 

From  Luzerne,  Nov.  22,  1781. 
(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 

To  Franklin.  Commending  General  Duportail  and  Colonels  Laumoy  and  Gouviou, 
Nov.  25,  1781. 

To  Franl'lin.  Commending  La  Fayette ;  stating  the  financial  troubles  of  the  Gov- 
ernment and  the  necessity  of  help  from  France;  argues  that  in  this  way 
France  could  make  better  use  of  money  than  in  any  other  way  ;  preparations 
for  coming  campaign,  Nov.  26,  1781. 

To  Jay.     Financial  troubles  preventing  a  decisive  winter  campaign,  Nov.  28, 1781. 

To  Dumas,  Incidents  of  camp  aign ;  death  of  General  Bedaulx ;  gallantry  of 
Dutch,  Nov.  28,  1781. 

From  Luzerne,  Dec.  11,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 

To  Jay.     Position  of  southern  camjiaign,  Dec.  13,  1781. 

From  Greene,  Dec.  15,  1781. 

(See  Greene  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 

To  Franklin.  Tories  in  North  Carolina  deserted  by  the  enemy ;  pillar  to  be  erected 
at  Yorktown  ;  prohibition  of  British  goods,  Dec.  16,  1781. 

To  Carmichael.  Prospects  as  to  Spain;  abandonment  of  North  Carolina  by 
enemy,  Dec.  20,  1781. 

From  Carmichael,  Dec.  20,  1781. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 

From  Carmichael,  Dec.  24,  1781. 

(See Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 

To  Adams.  Abandonment  by  Britain  of  friends  in  the  United  States;  military 
movements;  Congress  excludes  British  goods;  Dec.  26,  1781. 

To  Franlclin.  As  to  course  to  be  taken  as  to  the  Mississippi  boundaries,  the 
fisheries,  and  generally  as  to  terms  of  peace,  Jan.  7,  1782. 

To  Adams.     Importance  of  distrust  of  England  and  fidelity  to  France,  Jan.  9. 1782. 

To  Congress.     Parties  abroad  to  be  warned  against  Deane,  Jan.  18,  1782. 

Governor  Trumbull  advised  thereof,  Jan.  22,  1782. 

From  Luzerne,  Jan.  20,  1782. 
(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 

To  Franlclin .  Authenticity  of  Deane's  "intercepted"  letters;  failure  of  corre- 
spondence, Jan.  23,  1782. 

From  Luzerne,  Jan.  25,  1782. 
(See  lAvingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 

From  Franklin,  Jan.  28,  1782. 
(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date. ) 

To  Congress.  British  cruelties ;  importance  of  record  of;  informs  Congress  of 
communication  from  Luzerne  as  to  relation  of  the  belligerent  parties,  Jan, 
29,  1782. 

To  Greene.    Preparationa  for  campaign,  Jan.  31,  1782. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  1G5 

Livingston,  R.  R. — Continued. 
From  Vertjennes,  Jan.  31,  1782. 

(See  Vcrgenncs  to  Livingston^  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Feb.  1,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  lAviuf/slon,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.     Condition  of  political  affairs;    improvement  of  finances;  attitude  of 

^  Spain  ;  Fob.  2,  1782. 
From  Jay,  Feb.  6,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.    Need  of  assistance  from  France ;  exchange  of  prisoners,  Feb. 

13,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  14,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Feb.  16,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Feb.  18,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Liv'ngston,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Feb.  18,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Feb.  18,  1782. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Governors  of  States.     No  pecuniary  help  to  be  expected  from  Holland  or  Spain, 
and  France  can  not  bo  expected  to  grant  large  future  loans;  importance  of 
great  exertions  by  the  States ;  Feb.  18,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  19,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Rutledge.     Communicating  views,  Feb.  19, 1782. 

To  Luzerne.     Case  of  alleged  illegal  seizure  by  American  privateers,  Feb.  20, 1782. 
To  Congress.     Giving  current  news,  Feb.  21,  1782. 
From  Adarns,  Feb.  21,  1782. 

(See  Adains  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    Asks  for  additional  legislation  as  to  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs, 

Feb.  23,  1782. 
To  Congress.     Reports  plans  for  management  of  department,  Feb.  23,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  27,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Feb.  27,  1782. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Dana.     Strength  of  the  United  States   and  claims  to  foreign  recognition ; 
should  not  appear  as  a  suiipliant  at  any  foreign  court;  barbarism  of  British 
warfare,  Mar.  2,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  4,  1782. 

(See  Franllin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Mar.  .5, 1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Financial  improvement  of  the  country;  importance  of  friendly  re- 
lations with  French  minister  at  The  Hague,  Mar.  5, 1782. 
To  Bendon.     Position  of  public  affairs;  relations  to  Spain,  Mar.  6, 1782. 
To  Jay.     Information  as  to  campaign.  Mar.  8, 1782. 
To  Franllin.     Satisfaction  with  Franklin's  views,  Mar.  9, 1782. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  9, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  10, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 


166  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Livingston,  R.  R. — Continued. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  11, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Llvhigston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  19, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Li riiujston, same  date.) 
Erom  Dumas,  Mar.  29, 1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Lirinr/sfon,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fai/ette,  Mar.  30, 1782. 

(See  La  Faijeite  to  Livingston,  saMie  date.) 
From  Dana,  Mar.  30, 1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  namQ  date.) 
From  Fran kJi n ,  Mar.  30, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Apr.  4, 1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  samo  date.) 
From  Frauklin,  Apr.  8, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  12, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Apr.  14, 1782. 

(Sec  Carmichael  to  iyii?i«//sfo;j,  same  date  ) 
From  Luzerne,  Apr.  17, 1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  PrtM?  Jones.     Complaining  of  his  conrse,  Apr.  17, 1782. 
From  T.  S.  Lee,  Apr.  19, 17>2. 

(See  T.  S.  Lee  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  19, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  22, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Apr.  23, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Morris  (two  letters),  Apr.  27, 1782. 
(See  Morris  to  Livingstony  same  date.) 
To  Ja^.     Complaining  of  course  of  Spain,  Apr.  27, 1782, 
From  JaJ/,  Apr.  28,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date. ) 
Ta  Jay.     Present  military  strength  of  America,  Apr,  2-^,  1782, 
To  Carnhichael.     Condition  of  domestic  affairs,  May  1, 1782. 
To  Governors,  of  States.     Dangers  and  dishonor  of  a  separate  peace,  May  2, 1782. 
From  Luzerne,  May  7,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livi/ngston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Estimate  of  exi>enses  of  ministers  abroad,  May  8,  1782 

(See  Livingston  to  Morris,.  May  9,  1782.) 
To  Jay.     Political  affairs  in  the  United  States,  May  9,  1782. 
To  Congress.   Suggests  action  as  to  diplomatic  ax)pointmeut8,  May  9, 178^, 
From  Luzerne,  May  9,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.)- 
From  Thomson^  May  9,  1782. 

(See  Thomson  io  Livingston,  same  date. ) 
From  Dumas,,  May  10, 1782. 

(See  Z)?tma«  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Dana.     Objection  to  Dana  disclosing  his  powers  at  St.  P'etersbiwg,  May  lO'y 

1782. 
To  Congress,     Importance  of  French  alliance,  May  13, 1782. 


PRELIiMINARY    INDEX.  1G7 

Livingston,  R.  R.— Contiuned. 
From  Jay,  May  14, 1782. 

(See  Jail  to  Lirin(jslo)i,  same  date. ) 
From  Adams,  May  1^,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Lii^ingston,  same  date.) 
To  Harrison.      Present  policy  of  Britain,  May  21,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Adams,  May  22,  1782.) 
To  Franklin.     Fidelity  to  French  alliance,  May  2i,  1782. 

(See   Li ri)i(jston  to  Dana,  suma  date.) 
From  IVashiiHjton,  May  22,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  TrumhnU,  May  2:'>,  1782. 

(See  TrumbaU  to  Liringsfon,  same  date.) 
From  Lnzerne,  May  25,  1782. 

'^ea  Lnzerne  to  Liringsto)!,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  May  28,  1782. 

•'See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Dana.     Stress  to  be   laid  on  barbarity  of  British  warfare.  May  29,  1782. 
To  Adams.     Failure  in  correspondence  ;  continual  British  outrages,  May  30,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     Fidelity  to    French    alliance ;     condition    of    political    affairs ; 

Huddy's  case  ;    Asgill's  case,  May  30,  1782. 
From  Dumas,  June  1,  1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  June  7,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  9,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  June  12,  1782. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Trumhull.     Extraordinary  conduct  of  Deaue,  June  12. 
From  Adams,  June  14,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Greene,  June  15,  1782. 

(Sec  Greene  to  Ljivingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  15,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date. ) 
From  Morris  (two  letters),  June  20,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.     State  of  public  affairs,  Juno  23,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Martin,  June  24,  1782. 

(See  Martin  to  Livingston,  same  date. ) 
From  Franklin,  June  25,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  June  25,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  June  25,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Juno  28,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Ja//,  .June  28,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  June  28,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  29,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 


168  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Livingston,  R.  R. — Contiaued. 

To  Adams.     As  to  affairs  in  Holland,  July  4,  1782. 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Jaly  5,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Carmichael.     As  to  public  affairs  and  as  to  salaries,  July  6,  1782. 
To  Jay.     As  to  Spanish  remissness  and  as  to  salaries,  July  0,  1782. 
From  Carmichael,  July  8,  1782. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  July  22,  1782. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  FranMin.     Exchange  of  prisoners;  importance  of  fisheries,  Ang.  9, 1782. 
From  Franlclin,  Aug.  12, 1782. 

(See  Franlx'lin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Ang.  16,  1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  18,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date. 
From  Martin,  Aug.  20, 1782. 

(See  Martin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  22,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     As  to  salaries,  Aug,  23,  1782. 
To  Adams.     Complaining  of  inattention ;  importance  of  having  a  West   India 

market ;  evacuation  of  Savannah,  Aug.  29,  1782. 
From  Dana,  Ang.  30,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  JJvingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  3,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  4,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Complaining  of  inattention  of  foreign  ministers  ;  progress  of  mili- 
tary affairs,  Sept.  T),  1782. 
To  Dumas.     As  to  information  desired  and  as  to  evacuation  of  Savannah,  Sept.  5, 

1782. 
From  Dana  [Aug.  23],  Sept.  5,  17S2. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  6,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Sept.  7,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Sept.  8,  1782. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Moore,  Governor  of  Pennsylvania.    As  to  French  purchasers  of  land  in  that 

State,  Sept.  8,  1782. 
To  Congress.     Asking  for  leave  of  absence,  Sept.  9,  1782, 
To  Governor  Martin.     As  to  boundaries  of  North  Carolina,  Sept.  9,  1782. 
To  Congress.    Recommending  Dumas;  advising  action  as  to  Adams'  purchase  of 

house,  Sept.  11,  1782. 
To  Congress.    Giving  information,  Sept.  12,  1782. 
To  Congress.     Recommends  Dumas'  promotion,  Sept.  12,  1782. 
To  Congress.     Resignation  and  exchange  of  Laurens,  Sept.  12, 1782. 
To  Jay.     British  acknowledgment  of  independence ;  importance  of  West  India 

trade;  reason  why  it  should  be  retained,  Sept.  12,  1782. 
To  Governors  of  States.     Requesting  returns,  Sept.  12,  1782. 
To  Carmichael.     Inactivity  in  the  military  held,  Sept.  12,  1782. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX  169 

Livingston,  R.  R.— Continued. 

To  Morris.     Financial  troubles,  Sept.  12,  1782. 

To  Luzerne.    As  to  French  purchases  of  land  in  Pennsylvania,  Sept.  12,  1782. 
To  Dumas.     Affairs  in  Auierica;  Congress  sensible  of  his  services,  Sept.  12, 1782. 
To  Governors  of  States.     Iloportinj;-  Adams'  reception  as  minister,  Sept.  15,  1872. 
To  Adams.     His  Dutch  loan    ai)proved ;    Dumas'    case;  position  of  British   and 

French  navy,  Sept.  15,  1782. 
To  Laurens.     A<lvisino-  him  of  liis  retention  as  minister,  Sept.  17,  1782. 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  Sept.  17,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Sept.  18,  1782. 

(See  Jaij  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Dana.     As  to  political  affairs  at  home,  Sept.  18,  1782. 
To  La  Fayette.     Speculating  as  to  peace,  Sc^pt.  18,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     The  Eagle  s^ink  and  La  Foache  lost,  Sept.  18,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Sept.  23,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Sept.  23,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  26,  1782. 

(Sec  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  27,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Sept.  27,  1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Sept.  28,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Sept.  29,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmicliael,  Sept.  29,  1782. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Green,  Oct.  2,  1782. 

(See  Green  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  8,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  12,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Liringsion,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Oct.  13,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Oct.  14, 1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingslon,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  14, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Oct.  29, 1782.  ) 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     Question  as  to  seizure  of  brig  Laeiitia,  Oct.  30,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Oct.  31, 1782. 

(^ee  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Nov.  1, 1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  La  Fayette.    Prospects  of  campaign,  Nov.  2, 1782.) 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  4, 1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  6, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.  ) 


170  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Livingston,  R.  R. — Continued. 

To  Adams.     Peace  to  be  iu  connection  with  allies,  Nov.  6, 1782. 

To  Dana.     He  should  not  as  yet  display  his  public  character;  no  peace  to  be 

made  without  France;  accounts,  Nov.  7, 178:^. 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  7, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lirinf/aton,  same  date. ) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  8, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Lioingslon,  same  date.  ) 
To  Laurens.     Condition  of  campaign  ;  asked  to  join  in  the  negotiations,  Nov.  8, 

1782. 
To  Franklin.     Importance  of  Barbary  treaty;  exchange  of  prisoners;   Asgill's 

case,  Nov.  9, 1782. 
From  Adams,  Nov.  11, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date. ) 
To  Jefferson.     Appointment  of  Jetferson  to  negotiate  a  peace,  Nov.  13, 1782. 
From  Dumas,  Nov.  15, 1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.  ) 
From  Jay,  Nov.  17,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.  ) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  18, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date. ) 
To  Adams.     Jetferson's  appointment;  Laurens'  resignation  refused;  contracts 
ratified  and  returned;  Asgill  to  be  released;  particulars  of  differences  be- 
tween Holland  and  Denmark  asked,  Nov.  18,  1782. 
From  Dana,  Nov.  18,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.  ) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  21, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to   Livingston,  same  date.  ) 
To   Franklin.     Jefferson's   appointment;  logwood  trade;  delay   in  negotiation* 

Nov.  21, 1782. 
To  Jay.     Attachment  of  America  to  France.     Nov.  23, 1782. 
From  Jefferson,  Nov.  26, 1782. 

(See  Jefferson  to  Livingston,  same  date.  ) 
To  Franklin.     Memorials  of  La  Marque  and  Fabru  transmitted  to  South  Caro- 
lina; arrest  of  Gillon,  Nov.  27,  1782. 
To  Carmichael.     Progress  of  the  war,  Nov.  28,  1782. 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  29,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Resignation  of  office;  proper  salary  to  be  allowed  to  office,  Dec. 

2, 1782. 
From  Adams,  Dec.  4, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  5,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  name  date.) 
To  Harrison.     Slowness  of  military  movements,  Dec.  5,  1782. 
To  Congress.     Departure  of  Rochambeau  and  French  forces,  Dec.  9,  1782. 
From  Carmichael,  Dec.  10,  1782. 

(Sec  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  jAizerne,  Dec.  11,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Dec.  12, 1782. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Dec.  12,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Dee.  14,  1782.) 

(See  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Lee  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  itl 

Livingston,  R.  R. — Continued. 
From  Adams,  Dec.  14,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  JJvUujston,  same  date.) 
To  Jaij,  Dec.  14,^1782. 

(See  Jaij  to  Liviiig.sto)f,  .same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Trausmittius;  letters  from  Jay  and  Franklin,  Dec.  16,  1782. 
To  Dana.     British  cruelties  in  war;  closeness  of  British  eml)ar<;(),  and  consequent 

stoppage  of  trade ;  formation  of  State  constitutions,  Dec.  17,  1782. 
Fioiu  Dumas,  Dec.  17,  1782. 

(See  Dnmas  to  Livhigsfon,  same  date.) 
From  Greene,  Dec.  W,  1782. 

(See  G)'eene  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Ditiflculty  in  settling  a  tax  system  ;  obstruction  by  Rhode  Island,  Dec. 

19,  1782. 
To  Committee.     Difficulties  in  negotiating  foreign  loan,  Dec.  20,  1782. 
Action  of  Congress  on  his  resignation,  1)  .c.  21,  1782. 
From  Dana,  Dec.  21,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Treaty  with  Holland  signed,  Dec.  22,  1782. 
To  Governors  of  States.     Inclosing  copies  of  Oswald's  commission  and  announcing 

treaty  with  Holland,  Dec.  23,  1782. 
From  M:artin,  Dec.  2.3,  1782. 

{^ce  Martin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  24,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Dec.  27,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Dec.  30,  1782. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Dec.  30,  1782. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Reporting  oral  communication  made  by  French  minister  as  to  the 

peace  negotiations,  Dec.  30,  1782. 
To  Jay,  Dec.  30,  1782.     (See  infra,  under  date  of  Jan.  4,  1783.) 
To  Franklin.     Financial  difficulties,  Jan.  2,  1783. 
From  Dana,  Jan.  3,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Greene.     Giving  an  account  of  foreign  loans  to  date,  Jan.  4,  1783. 
To  Jay.     Regretting  Jay's  distrust  of  France,  which  he  holds  to  be  unwarranted ; 
considers  Vergennes'  course  to  have  been  fair   and  governed  by  an  anxious 
desire  for  peace  ;  Vergennes  himself  has  declared  that  he  was  determined  not 
to  interfere  between  Spain  and  the  United  States  ;  France  never  took  ground 
against  us  on  the  fisheries,  though  advising  us  not  to  hazard  the  peace  for 
them;  attaches  no  consequence  to  the  Marbois  letter,  Jan.  4,  1783.     (In  MSS., 
Department  of  State,  under  date  Dec.  30,  1782.) 
To  Franklin.     Urgent    necessity    for    further    French  loans;    trade  with  Great 
Britain  to  rest  on  recii)rocity ;  restoration  of  confiscated  property  impossi- 
ble;   fisheries   should  be  held;    impolicy  and  wrongfulness   of  distrust  of 
France,  Jan.  6,  1783. 
To  La  Fayette.     Regrets  the  departure  of  French  troops;  financial  difficulties, 

Jan.  10,  1783. 
From  Luzerne,  Jan.  10,  1783. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Jan.  11,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 


172  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Livingston,  R.  R— Continued. 
From  Dana,  Jan,  15,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Jan.  18,  1783. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.)  • 

From  Dumas,  Jan.  20,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  21,  1783. 

(See  FranJilin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  22,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Jan.  23,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Jan.  31,  1783. 

(See  Drtwa  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  ia  Fayette,  Feb.  5,  1783. 

(See  Xa  Fayette  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  5,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Jefferson,  Feb.  7,  1783. 

(See  Jefferson  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dawa,  Feb.  10, 1783. 

(See  DaiJrt  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Congratulatory  on  peace  ;  financial  difficulties,  Feb.  13, 1783. 
To  Jefferson.     His  departure  no  longer  necessary,  Feb.  14, 18, 1783. 
To  Greene.    As  to  evacuation  of  Charleston,  and  effect  of  British  cruelties,  Feb.  14, 

1783. 
From  Carmichael,  Feb.  21 ,  1783. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Feb.  25,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Advising  that  Dana  should  be  recalled  from  Russia,  Feb.  26, 1783. 
To  Washington.    Generally  as  to  peace,  Feb.  26, 1783. 
From  La  Fat,ette,  Mar.  2,  1783. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  2,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  4,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  5,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Mar.  7,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  7,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Da?m,  Mar.  12,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Greene.     Satisfactory  character  of  the  peace,  Mar.  12,  1783. 
To  Washington.    Analysis  of  the  preliu-.iuaries ;  belief  that  "tlie  enemy  will  leave 

these  States,"  Mar.  12, 1783. 
From  Carmichael,  Mar.  13,  1783. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Advises  that  sufficient  forces  be  sent  to  Southern  States  to  guard 
against  attack  by  Spain  or  England,  Mar.  13,  1783. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  173 

Livingston,  R.  R.— Continued. 
From  Luzerne,  Mar,  18,  IIQW. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Gorcrnors  of  States,     As  to  peaci'-,  Mar.  Id,  1783. 

ToConyress.    Impropriety  of  coiicoalmjiifcsof  prelimiuaries  from  France;  France 
has  given  us  no  ground  of  suspicion  ;  tlio  separate  article  should  at  once 
l>o  communicated  to  her,  Mar.  18,  1783. 
From  Dana,  Mar.  21,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livinf/ston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    Giving  coaiumuicatious  from  French  minister  as  to  importance  of 
goo  I  relations   with  Spain  and  as  to  preparation  for  contingency  of  war, 
Mar.  22, 1783. 
To  Sir  (ruy  CarJelon.     Announcing  recall  of  French  cruisers,  Mar.  24,  1783. 

(For  Carletou's  reply,  see  letter  of  Mar.  26,  1783.) 
To  Wa>ihington.     Announcing  general  peace,  Mar.  24,  1783. 

To  Commissioners.     Treaty  approved;  separate  article  condemned,  Mar.  25,  1783. 
From  C'«/7efo»,  Mar.  26,  1783. 

(See  Carlclon  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Satisfied  with  peace,  but  not  with  treatment  of  Franco;  financial 

difficulties.  Mar.  26,  1783. 
From  Dumas,  Mar.  27,  1783. 

(Saa Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Digby,  Mar.  27,  1783. 

(See  Dighy  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Paca,  Apr.  4,  1783. 

(See  Paca  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  CarJefon.  Apr.  6,  1783. 

"(See  Carleton  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Apr.  7,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    Announcing  cessation  of  arms,  Apr.  10,  1783. 
To  Carleton.     Urging  execution  of  stipulations  in  treaty,  Apr.  11,  17ri3. 
From  Jay,  Apr.  11,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     As  to  exchange  of  prisoners  and  evacuation  of  New  York,  Apr. 

12,  1783. 
To  Dighy.     As  to  restitution  of  vessels  taken  after  peace,  Apr.  12,  1783. 
To  Greene.     As  to  release  of  prisoners  and  restitution  of  vessels,  Apr.  12,  1783. 
To  Adams.     As  to  salary ;  extols  the  course  of  France ;  regrets  the  Dutch  troubles, 

Apr.  14,  1783. 
From  Adams,  Apr.  14,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carleton,  Apr.  14,  1783. 

(See  CarJeton  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  15,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Apr.  17,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Apr.  18,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.      Preliminaries  of  1782   ratilied  before  arrival  of  definitive 

treat}^,  except  separate  article,  which  ceased  to  have  effect,  Apr.  21,  1783. 
To  Congress.    Advises  that  treaty  in  Russia  should  not  be  purchased  by  fees,  Apr. 
21,  1783.    (See  Gratuities.) 


174  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Livingston,  R.  R. — Contiuuecl. 
From  Jay,  Apr.  22,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Livinfjsfo7i,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Apr.  22,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  April  22,  1783. 

(See  Washington  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  April  25,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  April  27,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Jjiizerne,  April  29,  1783. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Dana,     Directing  bis  return  ;  he  has  no  power  to  sign  a  commercial  treaty  ; 

the  United  States  give  no  presents  to  foreign  officials.  May  1,  1783. 
To  La  Fayette.     Congratulations  as  to  peace  and  prospects  of  Spanish  settlement, 

May  1,  1783. 
To  Carmichael.     Hopes  of  closer  connection  with  Spain  ;  satisfaction  with  treaty, 

May  7,  1783. 
From  Dumas,  May  8,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  H.  Laurens.     With  permission  to  return  to  the  United  States,  May  8,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     Anxious  for  information  as  to  defiuitive  peace,  May  9,  1783. 
To  Committee  of  Congress.     Can  not  continue  to  hold  office  "in  the  present  estab- 
lishment;" has  duties  as  chancellor  of  New  York,  and  is  bound  to  do  more  for 
the  restoration  of  his  private  affairs,  May  9,  1783. 
From  Dana  (two  letters).  May  9,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.)  . 

From  Dana,  May  13,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  May  13,  1783. 

(See  Washington  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  May  19,  1783. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     As  to  surrender  of  his  papers,  iSIay  21,  1783. 
From  Adams,  May  24,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  May  25,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Nourse.     Summary  of  foreign  loans  to  the  Uuitod  States,  May  26,  1783. 
To  Dana.     Sending  action  of  Congress,  May  27,  1783. 

To  Commissioners  at  Paris.     As  to  British  violation  of  treaty,  May  28,  1783. 
From  Adams,  May  30,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  May  30,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  May  30,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Complainingof  want  ofiuforraation,  and  giving  action  of  Con- 
gross  as  to  British  debts,  May  31,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     As  a  last  official  letter,  asking  him  to  keep  in  mind  certain  un- 
settled questions.  May  31,  1783. 
From  Jay,  June  1,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date  j 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  175 

L^vipfGSTON,  R.  R. — Coutinned. 

To  Congress.     Report  upon  Dumas'  letter  as  to  the  propositions  of  Holland  to  the 

United  States  to  accede  to  a  treaty  of  armed  neutrality,  Juno  \\,  178'.J. 
From  Thomson.     Re«5rettiQg  rosiguatloQ,  Juno  4,  178:^. 
To  Thomson.     Placing  the  papers  iu  his  hands,  June  5,  1783. 
From  Dana,  June  (5,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livinr/ston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  9,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livinf/ston,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Juno  12,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.    Congratulations  upon  treaty;  no  disturbance  iu  New  York,  June  14, 

1783. 
To  Congress.    Taking  leave,  June  14,  1783. 
From  Adams,  June  IG,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingsion,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  June  17,  1783. 

(See  Dan%  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dnmas,  June  20,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  June  23,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  June  23,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  24,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  June  24,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  June  27,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  July  1,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  3,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  7,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  July  8,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  9,  1783. 

(Sfe  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.") 
From  Adams,  July  11,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  12,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  13,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  July  14,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  18,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jay,  July  18,  1783. 

(See  Adams,  Franklin  and  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  July  19,  1783. 
(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 


176  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Livingston,  K.  R. — Continued. 
From  Jai/,  July  19,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Livingston,  same  date. 
From  Carmichael,  July  22,  1783. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date. 
From  FranlJin,  July  22,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams  July  23,  1783, 

(See  Adams  to  Uvingsion,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  25,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  i)a7m,  July  27,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  FranMin,  Jay,  and  Laurens,  July  27,  1783. 

(See  Franklin,  Jag,  and  Laurens  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  28,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  July  29,  1783. 

(See  Carmichael  to  LAvingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  30,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  31,  1783.) 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  1,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Aug.  2,  1783. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  2,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  J<?ams  (two  letters),  Aug.  3,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Aug.  8,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  10,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  LAvingston,  same  date.) 
From  ^(?a?».s  (two  letters),  Aug.  13,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Aug.  15,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Aug.  17,1783. 

(See  Z)rt»fl  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Carmichael,  Aug.  30,  1783. 

(See  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
From  Ja»/,  Sept.  12, 1783. 

(See  Ja^/  to  Livingston,  same  date.) 
Lloyd  et  al. — 

From  i*Va»iA:?iM,  Feb.  1, 1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lloyd  et  al.,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Jan  26,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Floyd  et  al.,  same  date.) 
Loans— 

Right  of  neutral  to  make,  to  belligerent.     Introduction,  $  100. 
French,  to  the  United  States  defined  by  "contract"  of  Feb.  25, 1783.     76{(/.  $64. 
Need  of,  from  France.     Committee  to  Deane,  Oct.  1,  1776;  Deane  to  Morris,  Sept. 
20,  Oct.  1,  1776 ;  Carmichael  to  Committee,  Nov.  2, 177(5. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  177 

LoAXS— Continued. 

How  to  be  negotiated  abrocad.     Deaiie  to  Committee,  Doc.  1, 177!), 
Prospects  of  obtain iii<;.     Ddano  to  Committee,  Doc.  1,  1776. 
Can  bo  obtained  at'5  per  cent.     Dcanc  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
A.ccept(;d  by  Congress.     Commilte;  to  Co  timiHsloiiers,  Dec.  21,  1776. 
Application  to  France  for.     Morris  to  Commissioners,  Jan.  14.  1777. 
French,  to  the  United  States  on  Jan.  17,  1777;  Franklin's  nienioraadiiiu  as  to,  iu 
note  to  letter  ot  Jan.  17,  1777.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Feb.  11),  Oct.  6, 
1777;  Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12,  Oct.  7,  Nov.  20,  Dec.  18, 1778.     (See 
lutroductiou,  ^^^  64  _^.) 
To  the  United  States  good  for  foreign  investors.     FrankUti's  paper,  of  Aug.  — ,1777. 
Progress  of,  iu  France.      Commissioners  to  Committee,  Oct.  7,  1777. 
Action  of  Congress  urging  importance  of,  Dec.  2,3,1777. 
Increased  liberality  of  France.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Dec.  18,  1777.     (See 

France.) 
In  Spain  not  practicable.     Gardoqui  to  A.  Lee,  Aug.  13,  1778.     (See  Spain.) 
From  France ;  importance  of  loans  urged.   Commissioners  to  Vergeiines,  Aug.  29, 1778. 
Ditficnlties  in  obtaining.     Franklin  to  Committee,  May  26,  1779. 
Promised  by  Spain.     Carmicliael  to  Committee,  Jan.  4,  1781. 
Not  obtainable  in  Holland.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  4,  1781;  same  to  same,  June 

14, 15, 1781 ;  Adams  to  Franklin,  Apr.  27,  1781. 
Partially  promised  by  Spain  to  Jay  to  meet  bills.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan. 

29,  1781. 
Can  not  be  raised  in  Russia.     Dana  to  Committee,  Feb.  16,  1781. 
More  hopes  in  Holland.     Adams  to  Congress,  Feb.  15,  1781. 
Action  of  Congress  as  to  appropriation  i'or,  Sept.  14,  1782. 

From  abroad  ;  summary  of.    Livingston  to  G-reene,  Jan.  4,  1783  ;  Livingston  toNourse, 
May  26,  1783.     {See  Franklin,  Morris.) 
Loan-office  certificates  not  repudiation.     Adams  to  Vergennes,  Jane  22, 29,  July 

1,  1780;    Vergennes  to  Adams,  June  29,  1780. 
Loan  officers  of  the  States.     From  Morris,  Oct.  13,  1781. 

CSee  Morris  to  Loan  Officers,  same  date.) 
Lomen  vts.     His  views  as  to  Beaumarchais.     Introduction,  ^$  58, 61, 62, 67,  68. 
Logwood.     Importance  of  trade.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Sept.  3,  1782. 
LoxGCfiAMP's  case.     Report  of  a  committee  of  Congress  as  to.  May  29, 1784. 
London.     Negotiations  by  Franklin  iu  1775.     Franklin''s  narrative.  Mar.  25,  1775. 
LoiiD  Howe,  frigate.    Sale  of,  as  prize.  Florida  Blanca  to  Carmicliael,  Oct.  14,  1782. 
"  Lost  Million."    Discussion  as  to.     Introduction,  $  62. 
Louis  XV.    Policy  of,  to  America.    J&ifZ.,  $  36. 
Louis  XVI— 

Hesitation  of,  as  to  French  interference  ;  his  cabinet.     Introduction,  ^  37. 

His  personal  kindliness  and  worth.     Ibid.,  ^  43. 

Letter  to  King  of  Spain  announcing  treaties  with  America.     1  hid.,  ^  47. 

Parting  tribute  to  Franklin.     Ibid.,  $  128. 

From  Vergennes.    Asked  to  approve  supply  of  funds  to  America,  May  2,  177G. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Louis  XVI,  same  date.) 
To  Charles  III.     Asking  him  to  join  in  acknowledging  America,  Jan.  8,  1778. 
Presentation  of  commissioners  to.     Gerard  to  Commissioners,  Mar.  17,  1778. 
Presents  his  portrait  to  Silas  Deane.      Vergennes  to  Deane,  Mar.  26,  1778. 
To   Congress.    Announces  sailing  of  D'Estaing's  fleet   (see,   also,  Introduction, 

$$  37/).     Mar.  26,  1778. 
Picture  of,  asked  by  commissioners,  Nov.  12,  1778. 
Good  qualities  of.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  7,  1780. 
From  Congress,  Nov.  22,  1780. 

(See  Congress  {Huntington)  to  King  of  France,  same  date.) 
12  WH 


178  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Louis  XVI— Continued. 

To  Congress.    As  to  his  continued  aid,  Mar.  10,  1781. 
From  Congress,  June  I,  1781. 

(See  Congress  lo  King  of  France,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  Oct.  18,  1781. 

(See  Congress  {McEean)  to  the  King,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  Nov.  29,  1781. 

(See  Congress  [Hanson)  to  the  King  of  France,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  June  13,  1782. 

(See  Congress  to  King  of  France,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  Apr.  16,  1784. 
(See  Congress  to  King  of  France,  same  date.) 
Louis  XVI  and  Marie  Antoinette.     Arrival  of  portraits  of.     Luzerne  to  Congress. 

Apr.  6,  1784;  Congress  to  King  of  France,  Apr.  16,  1784. 
Louis  Philippe.     Settlement  of  Beaumarcbais'  claim.     Introduction,  ^  71. 

LOVELL — 

As  committee  of  correspondence.     (See  Committee.) 
His  opposition  to  Washington.     Introduction,  §  11. 
His  opposition  to  Franklin.     Ibid.,  §  146. 

To  Washington,  as  to  Coudray  and  other  French  officers,  July  24,  1777. 
•       From  Franldin,  Oct.  17,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  21,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Failure  of  correspondence,  Apr.  30,  1778. 
From  Morris,  May  2,  1778. 

(See  Morris  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.    Evacuation  of  Philadelphia  ;  acknowledging  papers,  June  20, 1778. 
From  Adams,  July  9,  1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  22,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  26,  1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  currency,  Dec.  8,  1778. 
To  Franklin.     Political  prospects,  Jan.  29,  1779. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  20,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  2,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     Reporting  action  as  to  Lee's  recall  and  on  the  cases  of  Deane  and 
Izard  ;  committee  of  foreign  aftairs  broken  up,  Lovell  alone  remaining  ;  op- 
position to  A.  Lee,  June  13,  1779. 
To  Adams.    Report  of  congressional  action  as  to  ministers  at  Paris,  June  13, 1779. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  raid  in  Connecticut,  and  diplomatic  arrangement,  July  16, 

1779. 
To  A.  Lee.     Raid  in  Connecticut  and  Lee's  foresight,  July  16,  1779. 
To  A.  Lee.     Repeating  parts  of  letter  of  June  13,  1779,  and  criticising  action  of 

Congress  adverse  to  A.  Lee,  July  17,  1779. 
To  W.  Lee.     Announcing  his  recall,  July  17,  1779. 
To  Izard.     As  to  his  recall,  July  17,  1779. 
To  A.  Lee.     Committee  of  foreign  affairs  has  virtually  ceased  to  exist;  position 

of  A.  Lee's  affairs,  Aug.  6,  1779. 
From  Adams,  Aug.  13,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.    Account  of  election  of  commissioners,  Sept.  27,  28,  1779. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  179 

LovELL — Continued. 

From  Franklin,  Sept.  '.W,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     Aunouncin<;  Jay's  ai^pointment  to  Spain,  Oct.  1'5,  1779, 
From  Adams,  Oct.  17,  1779. 

(See  Jda)ns  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  17,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  Laurens.     As  to  currency,  Dec.  11,  1779.  4 

To  Franklin.     As  to  correspondence,  Feb.  24,  1780. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  16,  1780. 

(See  Lovell  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  16,  1780. 

(See  Lovell  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  May  27,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.     As  to  finances,  June  16,  1780, 

To  Dumas.     Commendation;  introducing  Searle,  July  10,  1780. 
To  Dolirman.     Announcing  his  appointment  as  agent,  July  11,  1780. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  overdrafts  of  bills,  July  11,  1780. 
To  Adams.     As  to  loan  in  Holland,  July  11,  1780. 

To  Jay.    Failure  of  correspondence  ;  missions  of  Soarlo  and  Laurens,  July  U,  1780, 
To  Adams.     As  to  drafts,  July  12,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  10,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  finances,  Aug.  15;  Sept.  7,  1780. 
From  Jay,  Oct.  27,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     As  to  failure  of  letters,  Oct.  28,  1780. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  forwarding  letters  to  Jay,  Oct*  28,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  2,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
To  F'ranklin.     Palfrey  sent  a 5  general  agent,  Dec.  21,  1780. 
To  Jay.     Instructions  sent ;  dispatches  tami^ered  with;  office  for  foreign  affairs 

established,  Feb.  20,  1781. 
To  Jay.     Sends    gazettes  and  journals    and  resolutions  of   Congress  respectiiiig 

ratilication  of  the  articles  binding  the  thirteen  States,  Mar.  9,  1781. 
To  Franklin.     Gazettes,  journals,    and  resolutions  of  Congress  forwarded;  dis- 
patches received;  sentiments  as  to  time  of  his  announcing  his  i>owers  to- 
Great  Britain  and  on  calling  in  paper  money  expressed  to  Adams,  Mar.  9, 
1781. 
To  Franklin.     Sends  newspapers  and  journals;  English  fleet  leave  Chesapeake 
Bay  after  the  battle  with  the  French  ;  brittle  between  Greene  and  Cornwallis, 
Mar.  31,  1781. 
To  Franklin.     Barbarous  treatment  of  Curson,  Gouvcrneur,   and  Witherspoon 

at  Eustatia,  May  9,  1781. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  Dr.  Putnam,  May  17,  1781. 
To  Jay.     Inclosing  papers,  June  4,  1781. 
To  Carmichael.     Acknowledging  papers,  Juno  15,  1781. 
To  Jay.     Inclosing  papers,  June  15,  1781. 
To  Adams.     With  inclosures,  July  21,  1781. 
To  Franklin.     With  inclosures,  July  21,  1781. 
To  Jay.     With  inclosures,  Aug.  15,  1781. 
To  Adams.     With  inclosures,  Sept.  1,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  13,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Lovell,,  same  date.) 


180  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

LoVELL — Continued. 

To  W.  Lee.    As  to  balance  due  liim,  Sept.  20,  1781. 
From  Morris,  June  16,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  LoveU,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  July  10,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Lovell,  same  date.) 
Low  Countries.     (See  Netherlands.) 
Loyalists — 

*        Deterred  from  enlisting  in  British  army  by  spectacles  of  British  cruelty.     Intro- 
duction, $  22.     (See  Tories.) 
Effect  of  British  abandonment  of.     Introduction,  $  24. 
Bad  influence  of.     Ihid.,  <^  28.     (See  Tories.) 
Instruction  of  Congress  against  restoration  of,  Oct.  18,  1780. 

Bad  influence  of.     Extreme  measures  should  be  adopted  against.    Adams  to  Con- 
gress, June  17,  1780;  Adams  to  Cnshinr/,  Dec.  15,  1780.     (See  Befugees.) 
Cruel  treatment  and  abandonment  of,  by  British.     Introduction,  §  24.) 
Question  of  restoration  of  property  to.     Oswald  to  Commissioners,  Nov.  4,  1782; 

Stracheg  to  Commissioners,  Nov.  5,  1782;  Adams'  diary,  Nov.  20,  1782,  et  seq. 
Can  not  be  granted.     Commissioners  to  Oswald,  Nov.  5,  1782.     (See  Tories.) 
Opposition  of  commissioners  to  rc-instatement  of.     Adains  to  Livingston,  Nov.  11, 
1782;  Adams'  journal,  T^ov.  II,  1782,  et  seq.  ;  IranJclin  to  Oswald,  Nov.  26, 1782. 
Importance  of  faithful  performance  of  the  treaty  engagements  as  to.     Commis- 
sioners to  Congress,  Sept.  10,  1783;  Jay  to  Livingston,  Sept.  13,  1783;  Jay  to 
EamiUon,  Sept.  28,  1783. 
Kindly  treatment  of,  in  New  York.     Livingston  to  Jay,  Nov.  29, 1783.     (See  Tories.) 
Luzerne — 

Character  of.     Introduction,  §  84. 

Commendation  of.     Franklin  to  Adams,  May  10,  1779 ;  Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  3, 

1779. 
Minister  from  France;  conference  with  Washington,  Sept.  16,  1779. 
Addresses  Adams,  Sept.  29,  1779. 
Welcomed  by  Adams,  Oct.  17,  1779. 
Reception  of,  by  Congress,  Nov.  17,  1779. 
From  Miralles,  Nov.  25,  1779. 

(See  Miralles  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  Dec.  16,  1779. 

(See  Congress  (or  Huntington)  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     As  to  campaign,  Nov.  26,  Dec.  6,  1779. 
From  Holler,  Jau.  10,  1780. 

(See  Holker  to  Ijuzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Importance  of  obtaining  supplies  for  navy,  Jau.  10,  1780. 
To  Washington.     Importance  of  maintenance  of  French  alliauce,  Jan.  23,  1780 

(v/ith  inclosures,  giving  Spanish  ultimatum  aod  manifesto). 
To  Congress.     Announces  appointment  of  Anmours  as  French  consul  in  North  Car- 
olina, Jan.  24,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Importance  of  coming  campaign,  Jau.  25,  1780. 
Conference  with  Congress,  Jan.  28,  1780. 

Views  as  to  Spanish  mediation  and  to  approaching  campaign,  Jan.  28, 1780. 
Answer  of  Congress,  promising  adequate  forces,  Jan.  31,  1780. 
Represents  to  Congress  the  importance  of  coming  to  an  arrangement  with  Spain 

as  to  western  boundaries  and  Florida,  Feb.  2,  1780. 
From  Washington,  Feb.  4,  1780. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  Feb.  15,  1780. 
(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 


TRELIMINARY    INDEX.  181 

Luzerne — Continued. 

From  Franklin,  Mar.  5,  1780. 

(Sco  Franldhi  to  Lu~erne.  sanio  date.) 
To  Congress.     Fittinj;  out  frigati;  ('oiil'<'(l(t((fi(>n,Min\  8,  1780. 
To  irashinf/ton.     Thanks  Washingtoa  for  at(cntioi»  to  Miralles,  a<^ent  of  Spain, 

Apr.  21),  1780. 
From  Wash'uKjton,  May  5,  1780. 

(Sec  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Washinr/fon,  May  11,  1780. 

(Sec  ira.sh'uKjton  to  Luzerne,  Hamo  date.) 
From  Washing  ton,  May  M,  1780. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    Urges  energy'  and  concert,  and  asks  for  information  as  to  the  jiorts  of 

North  America.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  May  1(),  1780. 
Refers  Washington  to  La  Fayette  for  consultation  as  to  campaign,  May  21,  1780. 
(;!onfereuce  with  Congress  as  to  coming  campaign,  May  24,  June  5,  1780. 
I'^rom  irashingfon,  June  5,  1780. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Urges  energetic  military  action,  June  18,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Information  as  to  campaign,  June  28,  1780. 
From  Washingtvn,  July  2,  1780. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Congress,  July  7, 1780. 

(See  Congress  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    Announces  arrival  of  French  forces  in  America,  July  22,  1780. 
To  Congress.     Calls  for  American  naval  co-operation,  July  25,  1780. 
From  Reed,  July  25,  1780. 

(See  Reed  to  Luzerne,  same  date,  inclosed,  Luzerne  to  Congress,  July  26,  1780;) 
To  Washington.     Places  navy  on  Delaware  under  Washington's  command,  July 

30,  17b  0. 
From  Washington,  Aug.  4,  1780. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  Aug.  6,  1780. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Co-operation  of  both  France  and  Spain  to  be  relied  on,  Aug.  15, 1780. 
To  Congress.     As  to  financial  aid,  Sept.  1,  1780. 
From  Washington,  Sept.  12,  1780. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Announces  appointment  of  Marbois  as  chargd,  Sept.  16, 1780. 
To  Congress.     Suggests  certain  shipping" regulations,  Nov.  1,  1780. 
From  Vergennes,  Dec.  4,  1780. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     Plans  for  campaign,  Dec.  5,  1780. 
From  Washington,  Dec.  14,  1780. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Letter  of  the  King  of  France  to  the  Due  de  Penthieve  in  relation 

to  American  prizes  in  his  ports;  will  be  treated  like  French,  Jan.  15,  1781. 
From  Vergennes,  Feb.  14,  1781. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Arrival  of  M.  de  Tilly  with  a  French  squadron  in  the  Chesapeake, 

Feb.  25,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Morris  authorized  to  draw  bills  of  exchange,  Feb.  28,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Prizes  captured  by  Tilly;  Luzerne  desires  Congress  to  appoint  a 

committee  with  whom  he  may  communicate,  Mar.  2,  178  L 
From  Desiouches,  Mar,  19,  1781. 

(See  Destouches  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 


182  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Luzerne — Continued. 

To  Congress.  France  will  continue  with  her  army  and  navy  in  America  ;  Congress 
must  not  look  to  Franco  for  pecuniary  supplies,  nor  draw  bills  of  exchange 
and  expect  her  to  meet  them;  funds  will  be  furnished  for  the  supplies  or- 
dered by  Franklin;  Congfess  must  furnish  French  fleet  in  America  with  sup- 
plies, to  be  paid  by  bills  on  French  treasury,  Mar.  24,  1781. 
To  IFashingion.     Incloses  open  letter  to  Rochambeau  and  one  from  Destouches; 

laments  ill  success  of  expedition,  Mar.  27,  1781. 
From  Washington,  Mar.  31,  1781. 

(See  IVashington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Destouches.     As  to  proposed  military  movements,  May  7,  1781. 
To  Washington.     Inclosing  last,  May  7,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  frauds  by  English  privateers,  May  9,  1781. 
From  Washington,  May  23,  1781. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     As  to  plan  of  campaign  and  as  to  French  subsidies  and  supplies, 

May  25,  1781. 
To  Congress.    As  to  mediation  ;  advises  instructions  to  American  ministers  abroad 

to  enter  on  peace  negotiations,  May  26,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Objections  to  appointment  of  Dana  to  Russia ;   embarrassments 
arising  from  Adams'  undertaking  a  position  as  to  England  independent  of 
that  of  France;  necessity  of  concert;   position  of  France  as  to  mediation, 
May  28,  1781. 
To  Washington.  As  to  plans  of  campaign  and  subsidies,  June  1,  1781. 
From  Morris,  June  8,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  June  13,  1781. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     As  to  tender  laws ;  neutral  rights ;  Cumberland's  position  in  Spain ; 
French  efforts  at  aiding  America;  as  to  me.liation  ;  France  obliged  to  help 
the  Dutch  ;  as  to  subsidies,  June  18,  1781. 
To  Congref^s.     Communications  as  to  European  affairs,  July  23,  1781. 
To  Cangress.     As  to  consular  system,  July  26,  1781. 
From  Morris,  Aug.  2,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    As  to  recognition  of  Etombe  as  consul  for  New  England,  Aug.  23, 

Sept.  7,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  commission  of  Holker  as  consul  for  the  Middle  States,  Sept. 

10,  1781. 
From  Morris,  Sept.  20,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.  As  to  mediation ;  as  to  Dana's  position  at  Russia  and  that  of  Adams 
at  Holland ;^  as  to  the  application  of  Colonel  Laurens;  as  to  the  guaranty 
hy  France  of  the  Dutch  loan  ;  that  further  aid  could  not  be  granted  ;  that  all 
bills  drawn  by  Congress  on  Jay,  Adams,  and  Laurens  had  been  turned  by 
by  them  for  payment  to  Franklin,  that  is  to  say,  to  France,  Sept.  21,  1781. 
From  Congress,  Sept.  25,  1781. 

(See  McKean  (Congress)  to  Montis,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  25,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  I^uzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Ojt.  24,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  2,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Nov.  3,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Luzerne,  same  dale.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  183 

Luzerne— Continued. 

To  Washington.     Congratulations,  Nov.  4,  1781. 
To  Livingston.     Congratulations,  Nov.  4,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Congress,  Nov.  (5,  1781;  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Nov.  6,  1781. 

(See  Aloryis  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  6,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  21,  1781. 

(Sec  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.    As  to  peace  commission;  couimiinicateH  correspondence  as  to  dec- 
lination of  mediation,  Nov.  21,  1781. 
From  Morris,  Nov.  22,  2G,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Luzerne,  same  dates.) 
To  lAvingston.     As  to  admiralty  courts,  Dec.  11,  1781. 
From  Livingston,  Dec.  21,  1781. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  19,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.    Want  of  proper  admiralty  process  in  Massachusetts,  Jan.  20, 1782. 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  24,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.    Loan  opened  in  Holland  in  Oct.,  1781,  taken  up,  Jan.  28,  1782. 
Givesoral  statement  to  Livingston  of  position  of  European  aftairs  and  of  attitude 

of  France.     Livingston  to  Congress,  Jan.  29,  1782. 
Action  of  Congress  thereon,  Feb.  8,  1872. 
To  Livingston.    Complains  of  unlawful  seizures  by  American  iirivateers,  Feb.  18, 

1782. 
Livingston's  reply  to,  Feb.  20,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  20,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     As  to  campaigu,  Apr.  13,  1782. 
From  Rochanibeau,  Apr.  16,  1782. 

(See  Rock  mheau  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     As  to  debts  due  French  officers,  Apr.  17, 1782. 
To  Washington.     As  to  Beniowski,  Apr.  18, 1782. 
From  Washington,  Apr.  28,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
Conference  with,  as  to  importance  of  maintenance  of  alliance.    Congress,  May  1, 

1782. 
From  Livingston,  May  8,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     As  to  French  claims,  May  9, 1782. 
From  Livingston,  May  9,  1782. 

(See Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  May  12,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.    As  to  Holtzendorff,  May  25, 1782. 

To  Livingston.  Insidious  attempts  by  Britain  at  separate  negotiations,  May  28,1782. 
From  Washington,  June  5,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  June  7,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  June  9,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     On  birth  of  an  heir  to  French  crown,  June  10, 1782. 


184  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Luzerne— Coiitinned. 

To  liochambeau.    As  to  future  campaign,  Jiiue  14,  1782. 
From  Washington,  Juue  24,  1782. 

(See  Wash'm<jton  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     As  to  movemeiUs  of  Rocliambean,  July  3,  July  S,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  July  3,  1782. 

{See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     As  to  concert  with  French  forces,  Aug.  3,  1782. 
To  Washington.     As  to  cartel  for  excliaugo  and  as  to  prospects  of  pc^ace,  Aug.  14, 

1782. 
To  Congress.     Recognizing  offer  of  gun-boat  America,  Sept.  1,  5,  178\}. 
Froiu  Livingston,  Sept.  5,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  12,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Vaudreuil,  Sept.  20,  1782. 

(See  Vaudreuil  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
Confers  with  Congress  as  to  dangers  of  separate  peace,  Sept.  24,  1782. 
From  Washington,  Sept   24,  1782. 

(See  Washinglonto  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     As  to  fraudulent  introduction  of  British  goods,  Sept.  27,  1782. 
To   Washington.     As  to  sincerity  of  British  Government,  Sept.  29,  17.r2. 
From  Morris,  Oct.  2,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
luforme.-l  of  Congress'  tidelity  to  the  alliance  with  France,  Oct.  3,  4,  1782. 
Frohi  Washington,  Oct.  25, 1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Lnzern  •,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     As  to  expenses  of  expressage,  Oct.  25,  1782. 
To  Congress.     Notifies  Congress  of  the  illicit  provisioning  of  New  York,  Oct.  28, 

1782. 
To  Congress.     Suggestions  as  to  legislation  for  protection  to  Freucli  holders  of 

funds,  Nov.  4,  1782. 
To  Washington.    Sui)[)iies  to  New  York  shall  be  cut  oif,  Nov.  6, 1782. 
To  Carleton.    As  to  La  Touche  ;  as  to  Asgill,  Nov.  9,  Nov.  12, 1782. 
From  Washington,  Nov.  13,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Nov.  26,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Vergennes,  Dec.  19,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
With  Livingston.     Conversation  as  to  foreign  affairs,  Dec.  30, 1782. 
To  Congress.   Expresses  satisfaction  with  the  action  of  Congress  against   a  sepa- 
rate peace  ;  warlike  exertions  should  not  be  relaxed,  Dec.  31, 1782. 
To  Congress.     As  to  capitulation  of  islands  of  St.  Christopher,  Nevis,  and  Mount 

Serrat,  Jan.  10,  1783. 
From  Morris,  Jan.  13,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Jefferson,  Feb.  7,  1783. 

(See  Jeferson  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     Possibility  that  the  war  may  continue  for  another  3'ear,  aud  im- 
portance of  preparation,  Mar.  15,  ir83. 
From  Washington,  Mar.  19,  1783. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     Announcing  loan  of  six  millions,  but  stating  that,  without  a  settled 
finance  system,  Congress  can  borrow  no  more.  Mar.  15,  1783. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  185 

Luzi']KNK— Continued. 

To  6't>«i/rc.s.s,  as  reported  by  Livinijjston,  as  to  friendly  relations  witli  Rpnin  and 

as  to  preparation  for  contin<^ency  of  war,  Mar.  22,  1783. 
From  Washington,  May.  29,  17.s:}. 

(See  Waiih'uujton  to  Lnzvrnc,  same-  dat«\) 
To  Wa-ikin/jton.     Freucli  troops  repealled,  Apr.  10,  1783. 
To  LU'ingiiion.     As  to  withdrawal  of  French  troops,  Apr.  21),  1783. 
From  Aforris,  May  2,  (>,  1783. 

{Sea  Morris  to  Luzerne,  same  dates.) 
From  Washingion,  May  13,  1783. 

(Sec  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
From  Congre'ys,  May  17,  1783. 

(See  Congress  (or  Mljjlin)  t(>  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     As  to  Durham  and  Gillam,  May  Id,  1783. 
His  opinion  of  Franklin  (soc  note  to).     Franldin  to  Jeuj,  Sept.  10,  1783. 
To  Congcess.     As  (o  contract  1,  July  16, 1782,  Sept.  17, 1783. 
To  Congress.     As  to  recent  and  final  lojins  by  France  to  ilic  United  States,  Sept 

17,  1783. 
From  Morris,  Oct.  15,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Luzerne,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     France  ready  to  malce  connnercial  treaty,  Nov.  2,  1783. 
To  Washington.     Congratulations,  Nov.  21,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Notifying  the  appointment  of  Miubois  as  consul-general,  Jan.  \l\i, 

1784. 
To  Congress.     Asking  for  relief  for  Radier  family,  Fei).  18, 1781. 
To  Congress.     Transmitting  portraits  of  King  and  Queen  of  France,  Apr.  G,  1784. 
To  Congress.     Calls  attention  of  Congress  to  indebtedness  to  France,  Apr.  U,  1784. 

(Sec  Morris  to  Marbois,  Aug.  17,  1784.) 
To  Congress.     Inclosing  papers,  Apr.  16, 17-4. 
To  Congress.     Taking  leave,  Apr.  21,  1784. 

To  Congress.     As  to  claims  of  De  Kalb  and  Fleury,  Apr.  28,  May  13, 1784. 
To  Congress.     As  to  French  consulate.  May  G,  1784. 
To  Congress.     Announcing  M.  Marbois  as  chargd,  May  13, 1784. 
Report  of  committee  taking  leave.  May  17,  1784. 

Madisox— 

A  constructive  revolutionary  statesman;  supports  Washington's  military  plans; 

sustains  Morris'  financial  plans;  sustains  Franklin;  agrees  with  Hamilton 

as  to  fulfilling  engagements  with  France.     Introduction,  ^4. 
His  views  as  to  the  Mississippi.     (See  Mississipjyi. ) 
His  views  as  to  Laurens'  course  in  the  l^'owcr.     Introduction,  \S  173. 
His  estimate  of  Morris.     Lbid.,  ^  183. 
To  Eandolpti.     Generous  actions  of  Franco;  prospects  as  to  i)eace;  H.  Laurens' 

position,  and  doubts  as  to  him,  Sept.  24, 1780. 
To  Randolph.     Views  as  to  peace,  May  14,  1762. 

To  Randolph.     As  to  Grenville'a  part  in  peace  negotiations,  Sept.  30,  1782. 
Position  of,  as  to  instructions  to  peace  connnissiouera.    Thomson's  report,  Auo.  8, 

1782. 
Report  of  debates  of  Congress  on  Marbois'  letter  and  other  papers  in  reference  to 

the  position  of  France,  Dec.  24,  1782. 
Report  of  proceedings  of  Congress  as  to  general  peace,  Jan.  3,  Mar.  12, 1783. 
Report  of  debates  of  Congress  on  treaty  of  1782,  under  dates  of  Mar.  12, 18, 19, 

22,24,26,1783. 
To  Randolph.     Danger  of  insolvency ;  his  high  opinion  of  Franklin  ;    effect   of 

peace;  precipitate  announcement  of,  Apr.  1, 1783. 


186  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Madison— Continued. 

To  Jeffersoti.     Marbois  declares  letter  in  Lis  name  transmitted  to  Congress  to  be 
spurious ;  projected  treaty  of  commerce  with  Britain ;  question  of  evacua- 
tion of  New  York,  May  13,  1783. 
To  Jefferson.     Laurens'  views  of  English  politics ;  comments  on  definitive  treaty  • 
Livingston's  resignation  from  want  of  duo  support ;  foreign  affairs  suspended 
by  reason  of  thinness  of  Congress,  Juno  10,  1783. 
Madison,  "Parson,"  to  be  distrusted.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  June  3, 1776. 
Madrid.     Impolicy  of  A.  Lee  visiting.     Gardoqid  to  A.  Lee,  Feb.  17,  1777, 
Magnifique,  French  gun-ship.    Loss  of,  and  compensation  for.    Livingston  to  Adanis, 
Aug.  29,  1782;  Lnzerne  to  Congress,  Sept.  1,  llS'l;  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Sept. 
5,  1782;   Vundreuil  to  Luzerne,  Sept.  20,  1762. 
Mahon,  Lord.     His  views  of  Washington's  military  genius.     Introduction,  $  12. 
Mail.     Spoliation  of,  by  foreign  governments.     Ibid.,  ^  105. 

Maillebois,  Marshal.     Approval  of  Washington's  strategy.     Commissioners  to  Com- 
mittee, Feb.  G,  1777. 
Malta,  Grand  Master  of,  acknowledges  medal,  June  21,  1783. 
Maltzan.     Frederick  the  Great  to,  June  30,  1777. 

(See  Frederick  the  Great  to  Maltzan,  same  date.) 
Manchester,  Duke  of.     Speech  on  the  plan  of  reconciliation.     Franklin  to  Thomson, 

Feb.  5,  1775. 
Manifesto — 

British,  of  Dec.  30,  1781,  against  the  United  Provinces.  Adams  to  Congress,  Jan. 

1,  1781. 
Of  Holland  against  Britain.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  18,  1781. 
Manufactures.     America  should  bo  independent  as  to.     Commissioners  to  Commit- 
tee, May  26,  1777. 
Marbois— 

Notice  of.    Introduction,  ^  84. 

Appointed  French  charge  d'affaires.    Luzerne  to  Congress,  Sept.  16,  1780;  July  1, 

1781.    (See  Introduction,  ^  55,  158.) 
To  Congress.     Asks  for  authority  to  impress  French  sailors,  July  9,  1781. 
French  charg^  d'affaires  in  Philadelphia.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Mar.  8,  1782. 
To  Vergennes.     Attitude  of  France  as  to  American  claims  to  the  fisheries  and  Mis- 
sissippi Valley,  Mar.  13,  17S2.     (Question  as  to  authenticitj^  of  this  letter. 
Note  thereto.     See  Forgery.) 
Translation  of  the  letter  inclosed  by  Jay,  he  not  having  seen  the  original ;  not  at 
liberty  to  say  where  he  got  the  translation.     Jay  to  Livingston,  Sept.  18, 1782. 
Action  of  Congress  as  to  same  letter.  Doc.  24,  1782. 
Franklin's  views  as  to  same  letter,  Dec.    30,  1782;   Jan.   1,1783.     Franklin  to 

Cooper,  Dec.  26,  1782. 
Little  consequence  to  be  attached  to  it.     Livingston  to  Jay,  Jan.  4. 1783. 
Assertion  of  spuriousness  of  letter.      Madison  to  Jefferson,  May  13,  1783. 
Letter  of,  discredited  by  Franklin,  July  22,  1783. 

Appointed  French  consul-general.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Jan.  30,  1784. 
Ajjpointment  of,  as  French  consul-general.     Congress,  Mar.  16,  1784. 
Aj)pointed  French  chargd  d'affaires,  Apr.  21, 1784. 
Assault  on  ;  report  of  Committee  to  Congress  as  to,  May  29,  1784. 
From  Morris,  Aug.  17, 1784. 
(See  Morris  to  Marbois,  same  date.) 
Marie  Antoinette— 

Kindliness  to  America.     Introduction,  $  43. 

Presents  suggested  for,  including  "Rhode  Island"  or   "Narragausett  Horse." 
Dcane  to  Committee,  Nov.  28,  1776 ;  Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
Maria  Theresa,  Empress.     Proper  mode  of  addressing.     W.  Lee  to  Congress,  Jan.  22| 
1778. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX  187 

Ma  RINK  AFFAIRS— 

Ciirc  of,  devolved  on  Franklin;  afterwards  ou  Morrin.     Morris  to  Congress,  Sept. 

8,  1781.     Introdnction,  ^SvS  113,118.     (See  Navij,  Naval  affairs.) 
Ill  Frjinco.     Burden  of,  imposed  on  Franklin.     Frauklin  to  Marine  Committee,  Jnno 

2,  1779. 
Marque,     Letters  of,  to  be  granted  against  the  English.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan. 

14,  i:8i. 

Mars,  privateer.     Tronble  arising  from  her  seizure  of  a  Portuguese  ship.     Franklin 

to  Congress,  Dec.  '.I,  1780. 
Marseilles.     Made  a  free  port  to  the  United  States.     Calonne  to  La  Fayette,  Jan.  5, 

1784. 
''Marsital,  Broglie."    Suggested  as  commander-in-chief.     Deane  to  Committee,  Dec. 

G,  177G.     See  Introduction,  ^S  76. 
Martin,  Governor — 

Efforts  of,  in  North  Carolina.     Martin  to  Livingslon,  June  24, 1782. 
To  Livingslon.     As  to  separate  peace,  Aug  20,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  Sept.  9,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Martin,  same  date.) 
Martin,  French  historian.     His  opinion  of  Beauniarchais.     Introduction,  »J$  57,  Gl, 
Makitia,   the.     Taken  prize  by  the 2)os^on.     Franklin  an d  Lee  to  7)«was,  Apr.  10,  1718. 
Martinique — 

Proceedings  of  admiralty  in.     Franklin  to  Sartine,  Apr.  28,  1779. 
Faihire  to  obtain  stores  in.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Aug.  11,  1779. 
Maryland — 

Attempts  to  purchase  arms  in  Europe.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  May  3,  1779. 
President  of,  as  to  supply  of  provisions  to  France,  Jan.  G,  1780. 
Good  effect  in  Europe  of  the  accession  to  the  Confederation  of  the  United  States 
of.     Dana  to  Congress,  Mar.  28,  1781. 
Matthews  — 

From  Livingston,  Nov.  20,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Matthews,  same  date.) 
McClintock's  case.     (See  Livingston  to  Weare,  Sept.  9,  1782;  Livingston  to  Luzerne. 

Sept.  12,  1782.) 
McKean — 

From  Adams,  Sept.  20,  1779  (with  notice  of  cliaractor). 

(See  Adams  to  McKean,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     Indifference  of  Spain  and  generous  aid  of  France  ;  condition  of 

military  affairs,  Aug.  12,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  5,  1781. 
(See  Franklin  to  McKean  {Congress),  same  date.) 
McNeil,  Cai)tain — 

Case  of.    Commissioners  to  Sartine,  Sept.  10,  1778. 

Title  to  prizes.    Commissioners  to  Sartine,  Sept.  17,  1778;  Sartine  to  Commissioners, 

Sept.  21,  1778. 
Success  of  as  privateer.     Adams  to  Congress,  Oct.  2,  1778. 
Appeal  in  behalf  of.     Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  9,  1779. 
Mazzki.     Notice  of.     Adams  to  Jefferson,  June  29,  1780  (with  notice  of  character). 
Mediation — 

Offered  by  Spain  in  1778.    Gerard  to  Congress,  Feb.  9,  1779.    (See  Introduction,  ^  98.) 
Offer  of,  by  the  imperial  courts  in  1779.     Carmichad  to  Committee,  Jan.  29,  1781; 

Franklin  to  Congress,  Mar.  12,  1781.     (Sec  Introduction,  vS  99.) 
Action  in  Netherlands  as  to.     Dumas  to  Congress,  Mar.  5,  1781 ;  Adams  to  Congress, 

Mar.  18,  1781. 
Co  unter  manifesto  of  The  Netherlands,  Mar.  18,  1781. 

Declinature  of  France,  unless  United  States  were  joined ;  documents  connected 
therewith.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  May  2G,  1781. 


188  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Mediation — Coutinned. 

Congress  accedes  to,  if  indepeudencc  of  the  United  States  is  recognized,  but  a 

long  truce  may  l>o  admitted  as  alternative.     Congress,  Juno  13,  1781. 
Instructions  from  Congress  as  to,  June  15,  1781. 
Views  of  Franco  as  to.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  June  18,  1781. 
Position  of  foreign  powers  as  to.     Adams  to  Congress,  Juno  23,  1781.  ' 

Papers  as  to.  Adams  to  Congress,  July  7,  1781 ;  Adams  to  Vcrgennes,  July  13, 1781 ; 
Adams  to  Congress,  July  14,  1781  ;  Adams  to  Congress,  July  1>,  1781;  Adams 
to  Vergennes,  July  16,  1781 ;  Vcrgennes  to  Adams,  July  18,  1781 ;  Adams  to 
Vcrgennes,  July  18,  1781 ;  Adams  to  Vergennes,  July  19, 1781;  Adams  to  Frank- 
lin, Aug.  25,  1781 ;  Vcrac  to  Dana,  Sept.  2,  1781. 
Refusal  of,  Ly  England ;  its  terms.     Dana  to  Congress,  Sept.  13,  1781;  Luzerne  to 

Congress,  Sept.  21,  1781;  Dana  to  Congress,  Oct.  15,  1781. 
Refused  by  Britain,  who  will  treat  with  us  only  as  a  sovereign  with  subjects. 

FranlcUu  to  Congress,  Nov.  5,  1781. 
Does  not  imply  submission  to  judgment  of  mediator,  though  it  may  give  him  un- 
due influence.     FranMin  to  Adams,  Nov.  7,  1781. 
France's  declinature  of ;  Great  Britain's  reply  and  other  papers.     Communicated 

by  Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Nov.  21,  1781. 
Refused  by  France,  unless  American  plenipotentiaries  be  received.     L^uzerne  to 

Livingston,  Nov.  23,  1781. 
Of  Russia  accepted  by  Britain   and  Holland.     Adams  to  Congress,  Dec.  12,  25^ 

1781. 
Of  imperial  courts  at  signature  of  definitive  treaty  not  objected  to  by  the  United 
States,  but  declined  by  England,  and  hence  not  received.     Adams  to  Living- 
ston, Aug.  13,  1783;  Adams  to  Congress,  Sept.  5,  1783. 
Instructions  as  to.     (See  Peace  commissioners.) 
Mediterranean  passes  called  in  by  Great  Britain.     Deane to  Committee,  Oct.  lb 

1776. 
Mercenaries.     Employment  of,  denounced.     Introduction,  §  22. 
Mercenary  troops.     Number  brought  to  America.     Ihid.,  ^  8. 
Mercury,  the — 

Sent  with  supplies  by  Beaumarchais.     Beaumarchais  to  Congress,  Feb.  28,  1777. 
Arrival  of.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  May  2,  1777. 
Merkle.     (See  Mgrklc.) 
Meschianza.     (See  Miscliianza.) 
Mifflin,  General — 

His  course  towards  Washington.     Introduction,  $  11. 
From  FranlTin,  Dec.  26,  1783  (with  notice  of  character). 
(See  Franklin  to  Mifflin,  same  date.) 
Mifflin,  privateer.     Appeal  in  behalf  of.     Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  9,  1779. 
Military  affairs.     (See  War.) 

Military  policy.     Its  relation  to  diplomatic.     Introduction,  ^^  1,8. 
Militia  .     In  the  Northern  States  in  good  condition ;  in  the  Southern  States  preparing 

to  be  so.     Livingstoh  to  Jay,  Aug.  26,  1780. 
"Militia  diplomacy" — 

III  success  of.     Introduction,  Q'^  15, 19. 
Advocated  by  A.  Lee.     Lhid.,  ^  144. 
Ministers  abroad — 

Impolicy  of  joining  several  in  a  mission.     Introduction,  §  106. 

Should  be  sent  to  all  European  courts.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  1776;  Adams 

to  Dana,  Apr.  18,  1781.     (See  contra,  Franklin.     Introduction,  (^\^  14, 15.) 
Action  of  Congress  as  to  dissensions  between,  Jan.  20,  Mar.  27,  Apr.  15,  20,  30, 
May  3,  22,  June  8,  1779. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  189 

Ministp:rs  abroad— Cou  tinned. 

Salaries  of.     Livingslon  to  Congress;  Nov.  Id,  1781;  May  H,  9, 1782;  Morris  to  Con- 
gress, May  8, 1),  1782. 
Action  of  Congress  a-i  to  distribution  of  funds  by,  Sept.  15, 1782. 
Adams'  views  as  to  qualifications  of.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Feb.  5, 1783. 
Expenses  of.     Adams  to  Gerry,  Sept  9, 1783.     fSee  Expensts.) 
Minister,  American.     WouM  be  received  at  London.     Laurens  to  Ministers  at  Paris ^ 

Aug.  9,  1783. 
MiNisTKRS,  foreign.     Mode  of  reception  of.     Action  of  Congress,  June  12.  17c3. 
Minister  to  United  States  from  France.    Appointment  of  Gerard  as.     Louis  XVI 

to  Co/i^ress,  Mar.  28, 1778.     (See,  also,  Z/<t^tr//e.) 
Minorca — 

Ottered  by  Britain  to  Russia  as  price  of  alliance.     Introduction,  ^  7.     (See  note 

under  date  of  May  26,  1781.) 
Obtained  by  Spain  by  treaty  of  peace.     La  Fayette  to  Livingston,  Feb.  5,  1783. 
MiRALLES.     (See  Introduction,  ^^^  86  J^. 

Memorial  of,  as  to  Spanish  ships,  May  19,  1779. 
To  Congress.     As  to  united  action  of  Spain  and  the  United  States  against  England, 

Nov.  24,  1779. 
Proposes  attack  on  Florida.     Miralles  to.  Luzerne,  Nov.  25,  1779;  Luzerne  to  Con- 
gress, Nov.  2o,  1779. 
Reply  to.     Huntington  to  Luzerne,  Dec.  16,  1779. 
Recognition  of  attention  to.     Luzerne  to  Washington,  Apr.  29,  1780. 
Answer  by  Washington,  May  5,  1780.      Washington  to  Luzerne,  May  11,  1780. 
MisCHiANZA.     At  Philadelphia,  1778,  injurious  to  British  cause.     Introduction,  §  23. 
Mission.     In  France  embarrassed  by  ihe  number  of  American  ministers.     Franklin 
to  Lovell,  July  22,  1778.     J.  Adams  to  S.  Adams,  May  21,  1878.     (See  Ministers, 
Diplomacy. 
Missionaries.     Protection  of.     Franklin  to  Commanders,  etc.,  June  22,  1778. 
Mississippi  River  and  Valley  (See  Introduction,  \S  8^5  ff) — 

View  of  France  as  to,  in  1778.      Vergennes  to  Gerard,  Mar.  29,  1778.     Introduction, 

^^  53,158. 
Policy  of  England  as  to.     Introduction,  $§  32, 158. 
Discussion  as  to.     Note  to  instructions  to  Franklin,  Oct.  26,  1778. 
Proceedings  of  Congress  as  to,  Feb.  23,  27,  Mar.  17,  19,  22,  24,  May  8,  12,  22,  June 
3,  17, 19,  24,  July  1,  12,  22,  24,  29,  31,  Aug.  3,  13,  Sept.  9,  11,  25,  28,  Oct.  13,  14, 
1779. 
Views  of  Spain  as  to.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Feb.  2,  1780. 
Instructions  to  Jay  as  to,  Oct.  4,  1780. 

Must  not  be  "  sold"  to  Spain.     Franklin  to  Jay,  Jan.  27,  1781. 
Action  of  Congress  as  to  navigation  of,  given  under  dates  of  Feb.  15,  June  6, 

Aug.  10,  1781. 
Madison's  views  as  to,  under  date  of  Aug.  10,  1781. 
Instructions  to  J.iy  to  abandon  claim  of  navigation  of,  below  31st  degree  north 

latitude.     Huntington  to  Jay,  May  28,  1781. 
Negotiations  with  Spain  as  to  navigation  of.     Jay  to  Congress,  Oct.  8, 1781.    (See 

Jay.) 
Position  to  be  taken  in  respect  to.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Jan.  7,  1782. 
Attitude  to  be  taken  to  Spain  in  respect  to.     Livingston  to  Jay,  Apr.  27,  1782; 

Congress,  Apr.  30,  1782.     (See  Introduction,  ^^  86, 158.) 
Action  of  Congress  in  respect  to,  Aug.  20,  1782. 

Action  of  Congress  as  to,  Oct.  3,  1782.     (See  Jay  to  Livingston,  Nov.  17,  1782.) 
Views  of  Jefferson  as  to,  under  action  of  Congress  of  May  7,  1784.    (See  also  In- 
troduction, M  «•) 


190  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Mississippi  River  and  Vallky— Contiuued. 

Navigation  of;  position  of  Spain  after  peace  of  1782.    La  Fayette  to  Florida  r>Janca, 
Fob.  19, 1783;  Florida  Blanca  to  La  Fayette,  Feb.  22,  1783;  La  Fayette  to  Florida 
Blanca,  Feb.  22,  1783;   La  Fayitte  to  Livingston,  Mar.  2,  1783. 
''Molasses  clause"  in  treaty  of  1778,     Question  as  to.     Introdnclion,  \>  4G 
MoLESON.     Gives  information  to  British  ministry.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  June  3,  177G. 
MONTMORIN.     (See  Mountmorin.) 
Moore.     From  Livixgston,  Sept.  8,  1782. 

(See  Livivystori  to  Moore,  same  date.) 
Moravian  missionaries.     Protection  for.     Franklin  to  Commanders  of  Vessels,  June 

22,  1778. 
Morris,  G. — 

Conferences  with  French  minister  as  to  relations  of  the  United  States  to  Spain. 

JSfote  to  instructions  to  FranMin,  Oct.  26,  1778  (with  notice  of  character). 
Advises  Franklin  of  opposition  to  him  in  Congress,  Sept.  25,  1782. 
Obtains  from  French  ministry  receipt  showing-  destination  of  "lost  million''; 
merits  of.     Morris  to  Jay,  Nov.  4,  1783. 
Morris,  R. — 

His  public  services.     Introduction,  ^^  4,  183. 

To  Commissioners.     As  to  progress  of  war,  Dec.  4,  1776. 

From  Deane,  Aug.  23,  Sept.  17,  23,  30,  Dec.  4,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Morris,  same  dates.) 
From  Jay,  Oct.  6,  1776. 

(See  Jay  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Johnstone,  Feb.  5,  1778. 

(See  Johnstone  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Apr.  29,  1778. 

(See  Jay  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Johnstone,  June  16,  1778. 

(See  Johnstone  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  3,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date,) 
From  Harrison,  June  8,  1778. 

(See  Harrison  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Joms,  June  27,  1780. 

(See  Jones  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Dianas.     The  difficulties  in  his  way,  Dec.  24,  1780. 

Authorized  to  draw  certain  bills  of  exchange.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Feb.  28,  1781. 
'"o  Congress.     Conditions  on  which  ha  accepts  the  office  of  superintendent  of 

finance.  Mar.  13,  1781. 
To  Burke,  Houston,  and   Walcotf.     Officers  over  whom  the  superintendent  must 

have  power  of  dismission,  Mar.  26,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Accepting  his  appointment  as  financier ;  difficulties  of  the  position, 

May  14,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Plan  of  national  bank.  May  17,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Importing  specie,  May  23,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Success  of  national  bank.  May  26,  1781. 
To  Jay.     Personal  relations;  prospects  of  campaign,  June  5,  1781. 
To  Luzerne.     As  to  funds  for  campaign,  June  8,  1781. 
To  Couteulx.     As  to  accounts,  June  8,  1781. 

To  Franklin.     Announcing  his  appointment  and  asking  for  advice,  June  8,  1781. 
Circuh^r  as  to  national  bank,  June  11,  1781. 
To  Congress.     As  to  national  bank,  June  21,  1781. 
To  Washington.     Conditions  of  his  acceptance,  Jnne  15,  178L 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  191 

Morris,  R. — Coutinued. 

To  Jay.     Importance  of  obtaining  funds  from  Spain  and  reasons  for  <his  applica- 
tion, July  1,  \1^\. 
To  Jay.     As  to  employment  of  American  sailors  in  Spain,  July  1),  1731. 
To  Congress.     Financial  difticulties,  July  9,  1781. 
To  Jay.     Appeal  for  iinaucial  aid,  July  13,  1781. 
To  Franklin.     Financial  aid,  July  13,  14,  1781. 
To  Governor  of  Havana.     Financial  aid,  July  17,  1781. 
To  li.  Sniilh.     As  to  iinancial  agency  in  Cuba,  July  17,  1781. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  linauces,  July  19,  21,  1781. 
To  (iovernors  of  States.     As  to  linances,  July  25,  1781. 
From  Franklin  (two  letters),  July  2G,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Governors  of  States.     As  to  linances,  July  27,  1781. 
To  President  of  Pennsylvania.     As  to  finances,  July  30,  1781. 
To  Lnzerne.     As  to  supply  of  the  French  army,  Aug.  2,  1781. 
From  Washington,  Aug.  2,  178 1. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Governor  of  Massachusetts.     As  to  fitting  out  ships,  Aug.  4,  1781. 
To  Lnzerne.     As  to  rate  of  exchange,  Aug.  4,  1781. 
To  Washington.     As  to  state  of  Army,  Aug.  13,  1781. 
To  Jay.     As  to  bills  drawn  on  him,  Aug  15,  1781. 
To  Washington.     As  to  finances,  Aug.  22,  1781. 
To  Governors.     As  to  finances,  Aug.  22,  1781. 
To  Governor  of  Virginia.     As  to  supplies,  Aug.  22,  1781. 
To  Confenlx  tj"-  Co.     As  to  finances,  Aug.  26,  1781. 
From  Washington,  Aug.  27,  1781. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  same  date). 
To  Franklin.     Progress  of  war,  Aug.  28,  1781. 
To  Congress.     Condition  of  finances,  Aug.  28,  1781. 
To  Governor  of  Maryland.     Condition  of  finances,  Aug.  28,  1781. 
To  Governors  of  States.    As  to  national  bank,  Sept.  4,  1781. 
To  Washington.     Promising  remittance,  Sept.  G,  1781. 
To  Pochambeau.     Asking  for  promised  supply  of  money,  Sept.  6,  1781. 
From  Washington,  Sept.  C,  1781. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  Sept.  7,  1781. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Accepts  reluctantly  charge  of  Marino  Department,  Sept.  8,  1781. 
To  Washington.     His  great  difiiculties  as^to  funds,  Sept.  10,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  12,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     Acknowledging  generous  advances  of  money  by  Rochambeau  and 

asks  for  extension  of  time  for  repayment,  Sept.  20,  1781. 
To  President  of  Pennsylvania.     As  to  financi;il  difficulties,  Sept  20, 1781. 
To  Lnzerne.     Appeal  for  aid ,  Sept,  25, 1781. 

To  Pennsylvania  LegisXainre.     As  to  accounts  with  that  State,  Sept.  2S,  1781. 
To  Rochamhean.     Postponing  payment  of  loan,  Oct.  1, 1781. 
To  Greene.     His  great  financial  difficulties,  Oct.  3, 1781. 
To  Commissary  for  Purchases.     Imiwrtauce  of  pressure  ou  States  for  supplies,  Oct. 

4,  1781. 
To  Confenlx,     As  to  accounts,  Oct.  12, 1781. 
To  Loan  Officers.     As  to  accounts,  Oct.  13,  1781. 
To  Governor  of  Virginia.    As  to  accounts,  Oct.  IG,  1781. 


192  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Morris,  R. — Coutiiiued. 

To  Congress.  Stilting  iudebtediiess,  tloracstic  aud  foreign,  and  calling  for  actiou 
thereon,  Oct.  l'^,  17^51. 

To  Governors  of  States.  Dclnsion  as  lo  foreign  aid  :  no  more  of  such  aid  to  be  ex- 
pected ;  a(ter  four  years  of  war  Ihe  ouly  foreign  sovereign  who  has  recognized 
us  is  France;  we  must  depend  on  ourselves.  Oct.  19,  1781. 

To  Greene.     Efforts  made  for  his  departure,  Nov.  2,  17t:^l. 

To  Luzer7ie.  Difficulties  attending  taxation;  injury  produced  by  paper  money; 
policy  of  France  is  to  meet  the  enemy  in  the  United  States,  Nov.  3,  1781. 

To  Congress.     As  to  apportionment  of  taxes,  Nov.  5,  1781. 

From  Franldin,  Nov.  5,  1781. 

(See  Franldin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 

To  Luzerne.     As  to  essential  character  of  Freueli  aid,  Nov.  6,  1781. 

To  Congress.     As  to  expenses  of  President's  table,  Nov.  'J,  1781. 

To  Bochambeaa.     As  to  accounts ;  congratulations,  Nov.  15,  1781. 

To  Governors  <f  States.    Apportionment  of  taxes,  Nov.  17,  1781. 

From  Washington, 'Soy.  19,  1781. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  same  date.) 

To  Governor  of  Connecticut.     Apportionment  of  taxes,  Nov.  20,  1781. 

To  Galvez.    As  to  accounts;  Nov.  21,  1781. 

To  Luzerne.     As  to  accounts,  Nov.  22,  1781. 

To  Luzerne.  Purchases  made  for  a  particular  State  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  pur- 
chases for  the  Union,  Nov.  26,  1781. 

From  Paine,  Nov.  26,  1781. 

(See  Pavie  to  Morris,  same  date.) 

To  Franldin.  As  to  the  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  France ;  as  to 
the  desperate  condition  of  the  United  States  if  French  aid  be  not  continued; 
danger  to  the  alliance  of  refusing  aid,  which  might,  in  the  feelings  of  eome, 
force  America  into  the  hands  of  England,  Nov.  27,  1781. 

To  Congress.     Financial  peril,  Nov.  21,  17csl. 

To  Flcury.     Asking  his  assistance  and  approval,  Dec.  3,  1781. 

To  Grand.     As  to  accounts,  Dec.  3,  1781. 

To  Franldin.  As  to  accounts  ;  increased  demand  for  French  goods  in  the  United 
States;  importance  of  future  help,  Dec.  5,  1781. 

To  Governor  of  New  York.     As  to  contributions,  Dec.  11,  1781. 

To  Governor  of  North  Carolina.     As  to  contributions,  Dec.  19,  1781. 

To  Governor  of  Rhode  Island.     As  to  contributions,  Dec.  29,  1781. 

To  Governors  of  States.     Appeal  for  aid,  Jan.  3,  1782. 

To  Governors  of  States.     As  to  Bank  of  North  America,  Jan.  8,  1789 

From  Franldin,  Jan.  9,  1782. 

(See  Franldin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 

To  Congress.     As  to  finances,  Jan.  15,  1782. 

From  Washington,  Jan.  25,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  sanic  date.) 

From  Franldin  (two  letters),  Jan.  28,  1782. 
(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 

To  Congress.     As  to  finances,  Feb.  11,  15, 18, 1783. 

From  Franklin,  Mar.  4,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 

From  Franklin,  Mar.  9,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 

To  Congress.     As  to  finances.  Mar.  9,  1782. 

To  Congress.     Objects  to  certain  purchases  of  goods  in  Amsterdam,  Mar.  9,  1782. 

To  Arnot.     Policy  as  to  purchase  of  army  supplies,  Mar.  9,  1782. 

From  Franklin,  Mar.  20,  1782. 
(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  193 

MoKKis,  R. — Continued. 

To  FrankUn.     Mode  of  drawing  bills,  Mar.  23,  1782. 
To  Phelps.     On  array  contracts,  Mar.  30,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  8,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Governors  of  States.     As  to  finances,  Apr.  l"),  1782. 
To  Appleton.     As  to  iinances,  Apr.  1(5,  1782. 
To  FrankUn.     As  to  drawing  for  French  loan,  Apr.  17,  1782. 
To  Greene.     Difficulties  in  supplying  army,  Apr.  24,  1782. 
From  Jay,  Apr.  2.5,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Alorris,  sanie  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Asks  for  an  account  of  diplomatic  salaries,  Apr.  27,  1782. 
To  Governor  of  Virginia.     As  to  separate  application  of  Virginia  for  foreign  aid, 

Apr.  27,  1782. 
To  Governor  of  Maryland.     As  to  finances,  Apr.  30,  1782. 
To  Wendell.     Retirement  from  private  business,  May  1,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  May  8,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Governors  of  States.     State  of  linances,  May  9,  16,  1782. 
To  Grand.     On  finances,  May  17, 1782. 
To  Congress.     As  to  finances.  May  17,  1782. 
To  FrankUn.     As  to  finances.  May  17,  1782. 
To  Conieulx.     As  to  finances.  May  18,  1782. 
To  Grand.     As  to  finances.  May  18, 1782. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  finances,  May  23,  29,  1782. 
To  Congress.     As  to  finances,  May  23,  27, 1782. 
To  Clark.     Vindications  of  his  policy,  May  30  1782. 
To  Olney.     As  to  finances,  Jnne  1, 1782. 
From  Beaumarcliais,  June  3, 1782. 

(See  Beaumarcliais  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     As  to  finances,  June  4, 1782. 
To  Carrington.     As  to  finances,  June  6, 1782. 
Yrom.  Livingston  (two  letters),  June  6, 1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  i/o?Ti8,  same  dates.) 
To  Lovell.     As  to  finances,  June  6,  1782. 
To  Livingston.  As  to  finances,  June  7,  1782. 
To  Jenifer.     As  to  finances,  June  11,  i782. 
To  Governor  of  Maryland.     As  to  finances,  June  14,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  June  25,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Governor  of  Rhode  Island.     As  to  finances,  June  20,  1782. 
To  Washington.     As  to  finances,  June  29,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     As    to    financial  condition  ;    importance  of  further  French  aid, 

July  1,  1782. 
To  Hamilton.    As  to  latter's  acceptance  of  receivership  of  taxes  in  New  York, 

July  2,  1782. 
To  Grand.     As  to  finances,  July  5,  1782. 
To  Fleury.     As  to  finances,  July  5,  1782. 
To  Governor  of  Maryland.     As  to  finances,  July  7,  1782. 
To  Lovell.     As  to  finances,  July  10,  1782. 
To  Governor  of  Maryland.     As  to  finances,  July  29,  1782. 
To  Congress.     As  to  mode  of  taxation,  July  29,  1782. 
To  Governor  of  Rhode  Island.     As  to  finances,  Aug.  2,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  12,  17c2. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 

13  WH 


194  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Morris,  R. — Continued. 

To  HamUton.     As  to  finances,  Aug.  28,  1782. 

To  Washington.     As  to  finances,  Aug.  28,  1782. 

To  Congress.    As  to  finances,  Sept.  9,  1782. 

To  Washington.     As  to  finances,  Sept.  9,  1782. 

To  Coiitenlx  cj-  Co.     As  to  finances,  Sept.  24,  27,  1782. 

To  Adams.     Congratulating  liim  on  liis  success  in  HoUaod,  Sept.  27,  1782. 

To  Franklin.     As  to  financial    arrangements;  Popular   attachment  to   France 

fidelity  to  French  alliance ;  necessity  for  further  loans,  Sept.  27,  30,  1782. 
To  Franklin.    Asking  in  respect  to  a  convoy,  Oct.  1,  1782. 
To  Luzerne.     As  to  loan,  Oct.  2,  1782. 
To  Hamilton.     As  to  finances,  Oct.  5,  1782. 
To  Governor  of  Xorth  Carolina.     As  to  finances,  Oct.  7,  1782. 
To  Iranklin.     As  to  advances,  Oct.  7,  1782. 
From  Jaij,  Oct.  13,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Washington.     As  to  supplies  for  Army,  Oct.  15,  1782. 
To  Governor  Greene.     As  to  finances,  Oct.  17,  1782 
From  Washington,  Oct.  18,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     As  to  finances ;  difficulties  as  to  army  contracts,  Oct.  21,  1782. 
To  Governors  of  States.     Ruinous  consequences  of  failure  on  the  part  of  the  States 

to  i)ay  taxes;  destitution  of  Army,  Oct.  21,  1782. 
To  Governor  of  Rhode  Island.     Financial  difficulties  of,  Oct.  24,  1782. 
To  Franklin,  Adams,  and  Jay.     As  to  closing  of  foreign  accounts,  Sept.  25,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  charging  to  the  United  States  supplies  sent  to  Virginia,  Oct. 

27,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Nov,  6,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Barclay.     As  to  his  duties  as  commissioner  at  Paris,  Dec.  5,  1782. 
To  Congress.     As  to  finances  and  coins,  Dec.  12,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  14,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  Dec.  20,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  23,1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Financial  difficulties  and  need  of  aid,  Jan.  11,  1783. 
To  Franklin.     Finances  and  salaries,  Jan.  13,  1783. 
To  Grand.     Financial  difficulties,  Jan.  13,  1783. 

To  Luserne.     Difficulties  connected  with  accounts;    Beaumarchais'  claim;    im- 
portance of  further  aid,  Jan.  13,  1783. 
To  Adams.     Importance  of  filling  up  the  Dutch  loan,  Jan.  19,  1783. 
To  Governor  of  Pennsylvania.    Necessity  of  aid,  Jan.  20,  1783. 
To  Washington.     As  to  business  of  Army,  Jan.  21,  1783. 
To  Congress.     As  to  financial  difficulties,  Jan.  24,  Feb.  25,  1783. 
To  Washington.     As  to  financial  difficulties;    resignation  and  Hamilton's  com- 
ments thereon,  Feb.  27,  1783,  and  note. 
To  Carmichael.     As  to  bills  drawn  on  Spain,  Mar.  4,  1783. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  7,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Necessity  of  vigorous  action  to  save  public  credit,  Mar.  8,  1783, 
From  Washington.     Expressing  confidence,  Mar.  8,  1783. 
To  Congress.     As  to  financial  difficulties,  Mar.  10,  1783. 
To  Greene.    Proposed  resignation;  financial  troubles,  Mar.  14,  1783, 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  195 

Morris,  R. — Continned. 

From  Luzerne,  Mar.  15,  1783. 

(Sec  Luzerne  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Some  decided  action  necessary  to  secure  the  country  from,  bank- 
ruptcy, Mar.  17,  1783. 
His  position  in  Congress.     Debates,  Mar.  18,  1783. 
To  Receivers  of  Taxes.     As  to  deficit,  Apr.  7,  1783.. 
To  Congress.     Financial  difficulties,  Apr.  114'.,,  1783.. 
To  Congress.     Submitting  specimen  of  coin,  Apo?..  23,,  1783'.. 
To  Congress.     As  to  resignation.  May  1,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Withdraws  bis  resignation,  May  3,  1783. 
To  Luzerne.     Hoping  for  advance  of  money,  May  (J,  1783.. 
To  Franklin.     Asking  for  accounts,  May  12,  1783. 
To  Barclay.     Asking  for  accounts,  May  12,  1783. 
To  Governors  of  States.     As  to  finances.  May  12,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Advising  disbanding  Army,  May  15,  1783. 
To  Greene.     Explaining  and  vindicating  his  position.  May  16,  1783.. 
From  Adams,  May  21,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.    Fnrther  earnest  application  for  loan,  May  26,  1783. 
To  Luzerne.     Urging  loan,  May  27,  1783. 
To  Governors.     As  to  aid,  June  5,  July  11,  1783. 
From  Adams,  July  5,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  10,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  11,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  July  13,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Congress.     Report  as  to  finances,  July  15,  1783. 
To  Congress.     As  to  state  of  his  department,  July  18,  1783. 
Tribute  to.     Jay  to  Morris,  July  20,  1783. 
From  Jay,  July  20,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Morris,  same  date. ) 
From  Franklin,  July  27,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  28,  1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Morris,  same  date. ) 
To  Governors  of  States.     Financial  appeal, >July  28,  1783. 
To  Congress.     Financial  appeal,  July  28,  1783. 
To  Congress.     As  to  certificates,  July  31,  1783. 
To  Congress.     As  to  finances,  Aug.  1,  1783. 
To  Willink  cf  Co.     As  to  Dutch  loan,  Aug.  6,  1783. 
From  Washington.     As  to  money  for  troops,  Aug.  6,  1783. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Aug.  9,  1783. 

(See  Laurens  to  Morris,  same  date.)  , 

To  Pay  master- General.     As  to  financial  troubles,  Aug.  12,  1783. 
To  Gerry.     As  to  settlement  of  accounts,  Aug.  26,  1783. 
From  Washington,  Aug.  30,  1783. 

(See  Washington  to  Morris,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners  of  Accounts.     Suggesting  certain  duties,  Sept.  4,  1783. 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  14,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 


196  ^  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Morris,  R. — Continued. 

To  A(la:<s.     As  to  benefits  of  the  peace.     Sej)t.  20,  1783. 

To  Fraitklin.  Esteem  for  France,  not  diminished  in  the  Uniteci  States  ;  impor- 
tance of  France  imposing  no  restrictions  on  American  ships;  navigation  acts 
destructive  of  commerce;  inilnence  of  commercial  interests;  deplores  de- 
lay in  payment  of  taxes,  Sept.  30,  1783. 

To  A.  Lee.     As  to  certain  contracts  of  Deane,  Oct.  4,  1783. 

To  Luzerne.     As  to  Holker's  accounts,  Oct.  15,  1783. 

To  WiUwk  cf  Co.     As  to  finances,  Oct.  23,  1783. 

To  Jay.  Narrates  the  difficulties  of  his  position  and  the  dangers  avoided  by  his 
administration  ;  discusses  the  foreign  aid  received  during  the  war,  Nov.  4, 
1783. 

To  Farmers  General.    As  to  French  loans,  Nov.  4,  1783. 

To  Adams.     As  to  mode  of  raising  funds,  Nov.  5,  1883. 

To  Congress.     As  to  taxation,  Nov.  5,  1783. 

To  Jay.     Folly  of  navigation  acts,  Nov.  27,  1783. 

From  Franklin,  Dec.  25,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Morris,  same  date.) 

To  Willink  ^  Co.  As  to  accounts ;  as  to  shallowness  of  British  attacks  on  Ameri- 
can credit,  Dec.  13,  1783. 

To  Couteulx  cj^  Co.     As  to  drafts,  Jan.  31,  1784. 

To  Congress.     Liability  for  damages  iuiiicted  in  war,  Jan.  21,  1784. 

To  Congress.  As  to  liability  to  persons  in  Canada  w^ho  furnished  property  or  serv- 
ice or  sustained  injury  during  the  war,  Jan.  24,  1784. 

To  Willink  <^-  Co.    As  to  accounts,  Feb.  12,  1784. 

To  Couteulx  4^  Co.     As  to  accounts,  Feb.  12,  1784. 

To  Grand.     As  to  accounts,  Feb.  12,  1784. 

To  Franklin.  As  to  importance  of  immediate  funds  to  meet  pressing  claims,  Feb. 
12,  1784. 

To  Franklin.     Survey  of  present  resources ;  an  earnest  appeal,  Feb.  13,  1784. 

To  Jefferson.     Estimate  for  civil  list,  Feb.  25,  1784. 

To  Congress.  Pressure  of  foreign  indebtedness  of  United  States,  Mar.  17  ;  May  6, 
1784. 

To  La  Fayette.  As  to  importance  of  free  port  at  Isle  of  France  or  Bourbon,  May 
19,  1784. 

To  Congress.     Necessity  of  funding  public  debt,  June  21,  1784. 

To  Marhois.     As  to  settlement  of  indebtedness  to  France,  Aug.  17,  1784. 

To  Congress.  As  to  Dutch  loan ;  payment  of  interest  increases  the  means  of  party 
paying,  Sept.  30,  1784. 

To  Franklin.     As  to  accounts  and  commending  Franklin's  views,  Sept.  30,  1784. 

To  Congress.  As  to  value  of  La  Fayette's  stir vices  and  as  to  commercial  reci- 
procity with  France,  Sept.  30,  1784. 

To  the  Public.  Oil  retiring  from  office  he  engages  personally  to  pay  all  the  notes 
of  the  United  States  at  maturity,  Oct.  11,  1784. 

To  Congress.     Resignation,  Nov.  1,  1784. 
Morris,  T.— 

Objections  to.     Commissioners  to  Secret  Committee,  Jan.  17,  1777. 

Agreement  wath  Farmers  General.      A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  14  1777. 

Dealings  of.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  18,  1777. 

Misconduct  of,  as  agent.     Deane  to  R.  Morris,  Sept.  23,  1777. 

Statement  as  to.  R.  Morris  to  H.  Laurens,  Dec.  26,  1777.  (See  Introduction, 
$  183.) 

Notice  of  death  of.     R.  Morris  to  Lovell,  May  2,  1778. 

Delivery  of  papers  of,  to  Ross.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Aug.  21,  1778. 

W.  Lee's  statement  of  his  relations  to.      TV.  Lee  to  Congress,  Mar.  16,  1779. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  197 

Morocco— 

Question  of  treaty  with.     Crocco  to  Franklin,  Jnly  15,  18,  1783. 
Negotiatioas  with.     Franklin  to  Cont/rcss,  Sept.  13,1783. 

Negotiations  with.     Crocco  to  Fraiiklui,   Nov.  25,  1783 ;  Fraiiklin  to  Carmichael, 
Dec.  15,  1783 ;  Franklin  to  Congress,  Dec.  25,  1783. 

MOUNTMORIN— 

Friendly    services  of,  at  Madrid.     Carmichael  to   Congress,  July   17,   1780,  witli 

notice. 
Conferences  of,  with  Jay.     ,7rt// to  Congress.  Nov.  G,  1780. 
To  J'ergennes.     Explanation  of  Spanisli  politics.  Mar.  30,  1782. 
Correspondence  with  Jay  as  to  finances.     Reported  by  Jay  to  Liringston,  Apr.  28, 
1782. 
From  Jay,  Jnne  2G,  1782. 

(See  Jay  to  Mounimorin,  same  date.) 
Mount  Sp:uuat.     Capitnhation  of.     Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Jan.  10,  1783. 
MoUTiiiE.v.      Agreement  for  furnishing  armed   vessels;    articles   for  hiring  armed 

vessels,  etc.,  Oct.  15,  1776. 
MoURKO.     Introduction  of.     Deane  to  Congress,  Apr.  8,  1777. 
Munitions  of  war.    (See  Su2)2)lies.) 
Mutiny  ix  Philadelphia  in  1783.     Boudinot  to  Commissioners,  July  15,  1783. 

Suppression  of.     Boudinot  to  Franklin,  Sept.  9,  1783. 
Myrkle — 

Business  dealings  of.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  18,  1777;   Commissionirs  to  Com- 

mitlee.  Mar.  4,  1777. 
His  relations  to  Commissioners.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Apr.  7,  1777. 
Naples,  open  to  American  ships.     Commissioners  to  Cruisers  for  Naples,  Oct.  9, 1778. 

National  Bank  of  America — 

Organization  of,  Jan.  8,  1782.     Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  Jan.  2,  1782  (note). 
As  instituted  by  Morris.     (See  Morris  to  Congress,  June  21,  1781 ;  May  17,  June  11, 

1783.) 
Approved.     Franklin  to  Morris,  Nov.  5, 1781. 
Naturalization— 

Power  of,  to  be  determined  by  Congress.     Jay  to  Franklin,  May  31,  1781. 
Practice  as  to.     Franklin  to  Jay,  Aug.  30,  1781. 
Naval  affairs — 

Burden  of  them  on  Franklin.     Introduction,  ^^  113,  118. 

Direction  of,  in  Europe  imposed  on  Franklin.     Franklin  to  Nicholson,  Jan.  26, 
1777  ;  Franklin  to  Thompson,  Nov.  25, 1777  ;  Franklin  to  Marine  Committee,  June 
2,1779.     {See  Navy.) 
In  Philadelphia  devolved  on  Morris.     Morris  to  Congress,  June  2,  1779. 
Naval  stores  can  be  obtained  from  North  Carolina  if  vessels  are  sent.     Committee 

to  Coinmissioners  at  Paris,  Dec.  30,  1776. 
Naval  gains  and  losses  during  the  war.     Adams  to  Congress,  July  6,  1780. 
Navigation  act,  British — 

Impolicy  of.     Jay  to  Vaughan,  Mar.  28,  1783. 

Principles  of.     Hartley  to  Commissioners,  June  14,  1783;  Adams  to  Livingston,  J u]y 

17,  1783. 
Enforcement  of,  against  the  United  States  declared  by  Fox  to  be  intentional. 
Laurens  to  Ministers  at  Paris,  Aug.  9,  1783. 
(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  Sept.  24,  1783;  Morris  to  Franklin,  Sept.  30,  1783.) 
Navigation  proclamation,  British,  of  May  1.     Mischievous  character  of;  retalia- 
tion recommended.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  July  22,  1783;  Madison  to  Ran- 
dolph, Sept.  13,  1783  ;  Hartley  to  Frayiklin,  Sept.  24,  1783.     (See  Introduction 
M2.) 


198  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Navigation  laws.    British  intolerance  as  to  ;  injurious  effect  on  Britain.    Laurens  to 
Thompson,  Mar.  28,  1784 ;  Laurens  to  Congress,  Apr.  24,  1784. 
(See  Franldin  to  Livingston,  July  22,  1783  ;  Madison  to  Randolph,  Sept.  13,  1783.) 
Navigation  kestkictions.     Repeal  of  by  France  would  build  up  French  trade  with 
the  United  States.     Morris  to  Franklin,  Sept.  30,  1783  ;  Morris  to  Jay,  Nov.  27, 
1783. 
Navy  Board.     From  Franldin  to,  Mar.  15,  1780. 
(See  Franldin  to  2favy  Board,  same  date.) 
American,  under  direction  of  sexiarate  committee  and  open  to  disorder  thereby. 

Jay  to  Washington,  Apr.  20,  1777. 
Proper  employment  of,  in  1777.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  May  26,  1777  ;  Com- 
missioners to  Jay,  June  2,  1777. 
(See  Morris  to  Commissioners,  Doc.  21, 177C.) 
Care  of,  in  Europe  devolved  on  Franklin.     Introduction;  §  118.     (See  Fraiiklin.) 
Control  of,  in  America  vested  in  Morris  by  Congress,  Sept.  8,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Congress,  June  2,  1779.) 
Should  be  employed  more  especially  in  cruising.    Adams  to  Congress,  July  6,  1780. 
Urged  to  cooperation  with  French.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  July  25,  1780. 
French.     Protection  of  French  coast  by.     Sartine  to  Vergennes,  Apr.  26,  1778. 
Dutch.     Proposition  to  increase.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  5,  1781. 
British.     Danger  to  the  United  States  from  their  superiority  in  American  waters. 
Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  13,  1781. 
Neate,  William,  writes  to  Franklin  to  know  if  a  reconciliation  has  been  effected. 

Franklinh  narrative  of  negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Negotiations  in  London,  1774-75.     Franklin^ s  narrative,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Nelson,  Congress,  July  20,  1776  (with  notice). 
Nesbit— 

From  Franklin,  Sept.  29,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  2sesbit,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin,  June  17,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Neshit,  same  date.) 
Netherlands — 

Affairs  in,  and  relatio a  to  the  United  States.     {See  Adams,  Dumas,  Franklin.     And 

see  Introduction,  §  97,  asto  position  of  Netherlands  duiiug  Revolution.) 
Adams  negotiations  with.     {See  Adams.) 
Affairs  in.     Dumas  to  Franklin,  Apr.  3,    May  14,  1776. 
Deane  writes  Dumas  to  know  if  he  will  meet  with  any  iucou.  enieiicc  in  traveling 

in.     Deane  to  Dumas,  July  26,  1776. 
Reports  from.    Dumas  to  Committee,  Aug.  10, 1776. 
Neutrality  of.     Deane  to  Dumas,  Aug.  18. 1776. 

As  to  debts  due  from,  to  Euglaud.     Deane,  to  Dumis,  Aug.  18,  1776. 
Will  pursue  policy  of  peace.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1, 1776. 
Reports  from.     Carmichael  to  Committee, 'Nov.  2,  1776. 
The  principal  money-lender.    Deane  to  Committee,  Dec  1, 1776. 
Policy  of.     A.  Lee  to  Dumas,  Jan.  28,  1777. 

British  dictation  to.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12,  1777. 
Memorial  for,  appended  to  letter  of  .4.  Lee  to  Committee,  Apr.  8,  1778. 
Probability  of  minister  to.     Franklin  to  Dumas,  Apr.  10,  1778. 
Draught  of  letter  to,  Apr.  10,  1778. 

Position  of,  as  to  United  States.     Dumas  to  Committee,  Apr.  14,  1778. 
Project  of  treaty  with.     Commissioners  to  W.  Lee,  Sept.  25,  1778, 
Draught  of  treaty  with,  Oct.  15,  1778.     Commissioners  to  Dumas,  Oct.  16,  1778. 
Action  of,  as  to  privateers,  Oct.  8, 13, 1779. 

Ships  of,  exempted  from  capture.     Franklin  to  Agent  of  Cruisers,  May  30,  1780. 
Warlike  action  of.     Franklin  to  Jay,  June  13,  1780. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  199 

Netherlands — Continued. 

Importauco  of  minister  at.     Adams  to  Co)if/ress,  Aug.  14,  1760. 

Parties  in.     Adams  to  Congress,  Sept.  25,  1780.     (See  Adams,  Dumas.) 

Effect  on,  of  the  capture  of  the  Laurens  papers.     Dana  to  Jackson,  Nov.  11,  1780. 

War  (lechired  against,  by  Eughmd.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  4,  1781. 

Proposition  to  increase  the  forces  of ;  abstract  of  events  in;  resentment  felt 
against  England  in.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  5,  1781. 

Unprepared  for  war.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  14,  1781. 

Ships  of  war  of;  approves  the  proposals  of  the  Prince  of  Orange  to  make  prep- 
aration for  war;  declaration  of  States-General  acceding  to  the  armed  neu- 
trality.    Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  15,  1781. 

Proclamation  of  States-General  that  provision  will  be  made  for  persons  disabled 
in  sea  service ;  proclamation  as  to  privateering.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  18, 
1781. 

Disposed  to  vigorously  prosecute  the  war.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  29,  1781. 

Treaty  between  Russia,  Denmark  and  Norway,  Sweden,  and.  Adams  to  Congress, 
Feb.  1,  1781. 

Peace  between  England  and,  not  probable.     Adams  to  Congress,  Feb.  15,  1781. 

Memorial  of  Adams  to,  presenting  resolution  of  Congress  acceding  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  armed  neutrality,  declared  by  Russia,  Mar.  8,  1781. 

Suffering  of  commerce  of,  by  abruptness  of  war.  J.  Laurens  to  Congress,  Mttr.  11, 
1781. 

Accepts  Russia's  offer  of  mediation  ;  counter  manifesto  of,  as  to  mediation  ;  man- 
ifesto against  England.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  18,  1781. 

Division  of  sentiment  in.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  19,  1781. 

Commission  as  minister  plenipotentiary  to,  received.  Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  29, 
1781. 

Memorial  of,  to  Sweden  asking  aid.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  29,  1781. 

Treaty  proposed  between  the  United  States  and.  Adams^  Memorial,  etc.,  to  tlie 
States- General,  Apr.  19,  1781. 

Money  not  to  be  obtained  there.  J.  Laurens-to  Congress,  May  15,  1781 ;  Adams  to 
Congress,  May  16,  1781. 

Peculiar  claims  on  France.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  June  18,  1781. 

Russia's  separate  mediation  for.     Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  16, 1781. 

Procrastination  in  councils  of ;  torn  by  factions;  no  pecuniary  help  to  be  ex- 
pected from.     Adams  to  Congress,  Oct.  15,  1781.     {See  Adams.) 

And  Britain.    Mediation  of  Russia  accepted.     Adams  to  Congress,  Dec.  12, 25, 1781. 

Political  position  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  14,1782. 

Failure  to  obtain  a  new  loan  in.     Adams  to  Franklin,  Jan.  25, 1782. 

Loan  of  October,  1781,  taken  up.  Luzerne  to  Congress,  J au.  28, 1782',  Congress  to 
Franklin,  Feb.  5, 1782. 

English  proposals  of  peace  to.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  Apr.  12, 1782. 

Peace  negotiations  of.     Adams  to  Dumas,  Jan.  1, 1783. 

Unfortunate  condition  of,  in  1783.    Adams  to  Jjivingston,  Jan.  23, 1783. 

Oppressive  conditions  of  peace  imposed  on.  Dumas  to  Adams,  Feb.  4, 1783 ;  Adams 
to  Dumas,  Feb.  5, 1783. 

Appoints  Van  Berckel  as  minister  to  the  United  States.  Dumas  to  Livingston, 
Mar.  4, 1783. 

Instructions  as  to  peace.     Dumas  to  A  dams,  l!»lar.  4,1783. 

Loans  to  the  United  States  to  date.     Livingston  to  Greene,  Jan.  4,  1783. 

Valuable  aid  received  from,  in  1783.     Morris  to  Jag,  Nov.  4,  1783. 
Neufville — 

From  Franklin,  Oct.  15,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Neufville,  same  date.) 

To  Jay.    Exijressing  attachment  to  the  United  States,  Apr.  6,  1780  (with  reply). 


200  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Netherlands — Continued. 
From  Jay,  Juno  18,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Neufville,  same  date.) 
Business  letters  of,  and  to,  Juue  1,  8,  18,  1780. 
Thanked  by  Jay  for  aid  given,  June  25,  1780. 

To  Jay.    Financial  efforts  on  bebalf  of  the  Uuited  States,  July  13,  1780. 
From  Jay,  July  29,  1780. 

(See  Neufvilh  to  Jay,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Aug.  16,  1780 

(See  Jay  to  Xeufville,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Oct.  4,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Xeufville,  same  date.) 
Improvident  conduct  of,  in  overpurchase  of  supplies.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Nov. 

5,  1781 ;  Franklin  to  Adams,  Nov.  7,  1781 ;  Franklin  to  Laurens,  Nov.  8,  1781 ; 

Franklin  to  Adams,  Nov.  26,  1781;  Franklin  to  Adams,  Dec.  14,  1781. 
Objectionable  accounts  of.     Franklin  to  Adams,  Dec.  14,  17bl. 
Neutral  flag.    How  far  protecting  enemy's  goods.     Franklin  to  Congress,  May  31, 

1780;  Franklin  to  Dumas,  June  5,  1780. 
Neutral  powers — 

Protest  of  Amsterdam  as  to,  July  1,  1780. 
Position  of.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Sept.  17,  1782. 
Neutrality — 

Duties  of,  settled  by  Revolution.     Introduction,  §  100. 

Position  of  France  as  to,  in  1777.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12,  1777. 
French  sensitiveness  as  to,  Carmichael  to  Bingham,  June  25,  1777. 
Duties  of  United  States  as  to.     Franklin  to  Grand,  Oct.  14,  1778. 
Spanish  rules  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  May  8,  1780. 

Armed.     Principles  of  enforcement  of.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9,  1780;  Car- 
michael to  Committee,  Aug.  23,  1780. 
Rights  of.     Action  of  Congress  as  to,  Oct.  5,  1780. 

Convention  of,  to  be  signed  23d  instant.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  14,  1781. 
Armed.    Declaration  of  the  States-General,  acceding  to  the.     Adams  to  Congress, 

Jan.  15,  1781. 
Treaty  of  marine  and  neutrality  between  Russia,  Denmark  and  Norway,  Sweden, 

and  Holland.     Adams  to  Congress,  Feb.  1,  1781. 
Armed.     Portugal  refuses  to  join.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Feb.  22,  1781.     (See 

Armed  neutrality.) 
Rules  and  duties  of.    Acceptance  of,  by  the  Uuited  States.  Adams  to  States-General, 

Mar.  8,  1781. 
Position  of  Russia  and  Sweden  in  respect  to.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  15,  16, 

1782  ;  Dana  to  Ellery,  Jan.  17,  1782. 
Alleged  breach  of,  by  American  privateers.     Blome  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  6,  1782. 
Questions  as  to,  arising  in  the  Revolution.    Introduction,  §  100.  (See  Armed  neur 
trality,  and  see  Introduction,  $  93.) 
New  York— 

Illicit  provisioning  of.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Oct.  28,  1782. 

Should  be  cut  off  from  supplies.    Luzerne  to  Washington,  Nov.  6, 1782  ;   Washington 

to  Luzerne,  Nov.  13, 1782. 
Evacuation  of     Livingston  to  Carleton,  A-pr.  11,1783;  Livingston  to   Washington, 

Apr.  12, 1783 ;   Carleton  to  Livingston,  Apr.  14, 1783. 
Evacuation  of     Question  as  to;  Madison  to  Jefferson,  May  13,  1783;    Washington 

to  Livingston,  May  13, 1783. 
Prompt  evacuation  of,  advised.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Sept.  6, 1783. 
Evacuation  of,  and  kiudly  treatment  of  tories  in.     Livingston  to  Jay, '^ov.  20, 

1783. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  201 

Nicholson— 

From  Franklin.     Iiistrnctious  to,  as  to  cruise,  Jan.  26, 1777. 
Recommeudcd  by  D'Estaing  to  Congress,  July  8,1776. 
Niccoli— 

To  Izard.     Advising  him  not  to  attempt  to  go  to  Florence,  July  28, 1778. 
From  Izard,  Sept.  1, 1778. 
(See  Izard  to  NiccoVi,  same  date.) 
Nile,  ship.     Question  as  to  capture  of  Izard's  goods  in.     (See  correspondence  of  Oct. 

12,13,19,22,1778.) 
NoAiLLES.     (See  Introductiou,  §  78.) 
North  Carolina.     Abaudonment  by  Britisli  forces  of  their  friends  in.     Lirhn/ston 

to  Franklin,  Dec.  16, 1781 ;  Livingston  to  Jdams,  Dec.  26, 1781. 
North,  Lord — 

His  attitude  during  the  Revolution.      Introduction,  «sS  27. 

Motion  of,  to  conciliate  the  Colonies,      Franklinls  narrative  of  negotiaiions  at  Lon- 
don, Mar.  22,  1775. 
From  Commissioners  in  Paris,  Dec.  12,  1777. 

(See  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee  to  Lord  Xorth,  same  date.) 
Futility  of  his  measures  of  conciliation.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb.  28, 1778. 
Conference  with  Hartley  as  to  peace.     HartJey  to  Franklin,  Jan.  2,  1782. 
Norton,  Sir  Fletcher.    Is  shown  Franklin's  "  Hints."     Franklin's  narrative  of  nego- 
tiations at  London,  Mar.  22,  1775. 
Norway.     Treaty  between  Russia,  Sweden,  Holland  and  Denmark,  and.     Adams  to 

Congress,  Feb.  1,  1781. 
NoURSE.    From  Livingston,  May  26,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Nonrse,  same  date.) 
Oath  of  allegiance.     Practice  of  commissioners  as  to  administering.     Commission- 
ers to  Congress,  Sept.  1,  1779,'    (^ee  Naturalization.) 
Officers,  British.     (See  Britain.) 

Officers,  French,  volunteering  in  service  of  the  United  States.     Characteristics  of. 
(See  Introduction,  ^S  78.) 
Negotiations  as  to  their  coming  over.     Deane  to  Committee,  Aug.  18,  Nov.  24,  29, 

Dec.  6,  1776;  Mar.  12,  1777. 
Impolicy  of  promising  high  office  or  income  to  such.    Franklin  to  Lith,  Apr.  6, 1777. 
Considerations  applicable  to  such  cases.     Franklin  to  Washington ,  .Tnne  23,  1777. 
Policy  of  Congress  in  respect  to  engagements  made  in  France  concerning.     Lovell 

to  Washington,  July  24,  1777. 
Right  to  issue  permanent  commissions  to,  in  France  disputed.     Congress,  Sept.  8, 

1777. 
Franklin's  caution  as  to  engagement  of.    J^ranklin  to  Lovell,  Oct.  17,  1777. 
Their  engagements  in  America  and  occasional  return.     Committee  to  Commission- 
ers, Dec.  1,  1777. 
Difficulties  as  to  some  of  them  ;  Holtzendorff's  case.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Dec. 

8,  1779.     (See  Holtzendorff.) 
Grateful  acknowledgment  of  services  of.     (See  Rochamheau,  Washington.) 
Olney.     From  Morris,  June  1,  1782. 

(See  Morris  from  Olney,  same  date.) 
Orange,  Prince  of— 

From  Congress,  Jan.  3,  1781. 

(See  Congress  to  Prince  of  Orange,  same  date.) 
Disposition  of,  as  to  war.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  15, 1781. 
From  Adams,  Apr.  19. 1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Prince  of  Orange,  same  date.) 
Orient,     Made  a  free  port,      Vergennes  to  La  Fayette,  June  29,  1783, 
OsTERMAN.     From  Dana,  May  8,  1783. 

(See  Dana  to  Osterman,  same  date.) 


202  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Oswald— 

Services  of,  as  a  "peace-maker."     lutrodiictiou,  ^  200. 
To  Franklin.     Peace  negotiations,  June  5,  17&2. 
From  SJwlburne,  May  21,  1782. 

(See  Shelburne  to  Oswald,  same  date,  in  Franllin''s  journal,  July  1,  1782.) 
From  Franklin,  June  5,  1762. 

(See  Franklin  to  Oswald,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  26,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Oswald,  sauie  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Juno  11,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Oswald,  same  date,  in  Franklin^ s  jonrnal,  July  I,  1782.) 
From  Franklin,  July  12,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Oswald,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  28,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Oswald,  same  date.) 
From  Townshend,  Sept.  1,  1782. 

(See  Townshend  to  Oswald,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin,  as  to  reconciliation,  Sept.  5,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  8,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  OswaJd,  same  date.) 
From  Townshend,  Sept.  20,  1782. 

(See  Townshend  to  Oswald,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin,  inclosing  papers,  Sept.  24,  1782. 

To  Commissioners.     As  to  restoration  of  property  to  tories,  Nov.  4,  1782. 
Cannot  be  granted.     Commissioners  to  Oswald,  Nov.  5,  1782. 
From  Adams,  Franldin,  and  Zee,  Nov.  5,  1782. 

(See  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Lee  to  Oswald,  same  date.) 
Commission  of.     Proceedings  as  to.     Jay  to  Livingston,  Nov.  17,  1782 ;  LivingHion 

to  Congress,  Dec.  23,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  26,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Oswald,  same  date.) 
To  Townshend.     As  to  signature  of  treaty  and  grounds  of  signature,  Nov.  30, 1782. 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  14,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Oswald,  same  date.) 
OuTKAGES,  British.     Exasperation  produced  by.     Introduction,  ^^^  22.     (See  Britam.) 
Paca.    Communication  of,  as  to  Arthur  Lee's  incompetency  as  minister,  Apr.  30,  1779. 
Pacification — 

Requisite  conditions  of.     Franklin  to  Correspondent  at    Brussels,  July  1,  1778. 
Conditions  of,     See  Proceedings  of  Congress,  Feb.  23,  27,  Mar.  17,  19,  22,  24,  May 
8,   12,  22,  June  3,  17,  19,  24,  July  1,  12,  17,  22,  24,  29,  31,  Aug.  3,  1 ',  Sept.  9, 

11,  17,  25,  28,  Oct.  9,  13,  1779.     (See  Feace,  Treaties.) 
Packet  boats — 

Employment  of,  by  American  commissioners.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar. 

12,  1777. 

Agreement  with  Chaumont  as  to  line  of,  Apr.  — ,  1777. 

Failure  of  scheme  as  to.     Franklin  to  Lorell,  June  2,  1779. 
Paine,  T— 

Washington's  view  of  (note).     Gerard  to  Congress,  Jan.  5,  1779. 

Alleges  Beaumarchais'  consignments  to  be  a  gratuity  from  France,  at  which 
Gerard  protests,  and  Paine  resigns  as  secretary  to  committee  of  correspond- 
ence.    Introduction,  $  62. 

(See  Gerard  to  Congress,  Jan.  5,  1779.) 

Disavowed  by  Congress,  Jan.  17, 1779. 

To  Morris.     As  to  Rayneval's  History  and  Deane's  letter,  Nov.  27, 1781. 
Palfrey,  W. — 

Appointed  consul-general  to  France.     Lovell  to  Franklin,  Dec.  21,  1780. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  203 

Palfrey,  W. — Coutiuued. 

Lost  at  sea  on  his  voyage  out.     Franklin  to  Adams,  Feb.  26, 1781  ;  FranJcVm  to  Con- 
gress, Mar.  12,  1781. 
Paper  money.     Daugers  of.     Vergennes  to  Adams,  June  21,  22,  1780  :  Franklin  to  Con- 
gress, June  26,  1780;    Vergennes  to  Franllin,  June  30,  1780.     (See  Morris.) 
Paris  mission.     Plan  for  reducing  its  expense.     J.  Adams  to  S.  Adams,  May  21,  1778. 
Paris  — 

American  legation  at.     Dissensions  in ;   proceedings  of  Congress  as  to,  Sept.  11, 

1778,  Jf.     (See  Franklin,  A.  Lee,  Adams.) 
Mischief  done  at,  by  having  too  many  envoys  at.     Introduction,  v^^^N  106, 126, 149. 
Parliament,  British — 

Analogy  from  action  of,  under  Charles  I.     Introduction,  ^S  8. 
Action  of,  on  the  petition  of  1775.     Franklin  to  Thomson,  Feb.  5,  1775. 
Its  defects.     Franklin  to  Correspondent  at  Brussels,  July  1,  1778. 
Parties  in.     Introduction,  ^^  31  j^. 
Parton— 

His  opinion  of  Beaumarchais.    Introduction,  $  61. 
Views  of,  as  to  Arthur  Lee's  diiferences  with  Franklin.     Ihid.,  ^  145. 
Passes.     Mediterranean,  called  in  by  Great  Britain.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  1776. 
Passport  for  ship.     Form  adopted,  Feb.  6,  1778. 
Passy.     Advantages  of,  as  a  residence,     Introduction,  ^  123;  Franklin  to  Dumas,  Jan. 

29,  1777. 
Patterson,  Captain.     Misconduct  of.     Harrison  et  al.  to  Bingham,  Feb.  1,  1777. 
Paymaster-General.     From  Morris  to,  Aug.  2,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Paymaster-General,  same  date.) 
Peace-makers.     English  volunteers  acting  as.     Introduction,  \S  197. 
Peack  negotiations  in  1782.    {See Adams,  Franklin,  Hartley,  Jay,  Livingston,  Luzerne.) 
Peace,  separate — 

Pledge  of  commissioners  as  to,  Feb.  2, 1777. 

Special  mission  as  to,  in  1779;  advice  of,  Gerard  as  to.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Jan. 

14,  Feb.  15,23,24,1779.  * 

Communication  to  Congress  of  Luzerne  as  to.  Sept.  24, 1780. 
Between  Holland  and  England  not  probable.     Adams  to  Congress,  Feb.  15, 1781. 
Negotiation  of.     Huntington  to  Franklin,  June  19, 1781 ;  Huntington  to  Adams,  June 

20, 1781. 
Importance  of  ministers  abroad  being  instructed  as  to.      Luzerne  to  Congress, 

May  26, 1781. 
Terms  of,  as  to  bounderies  and  fisheries.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Jan.  7,  1782. 

(See  Preliminaries.) 
Views  of  Madison  as  to.     Madison  to" E.  llandolph,  May  14,  1782.     (See  Treatise.) 
Royal  warrant  for  negotiation  of,  July  25,  1782. 

Articles  agreed  upon  as  to,  by  commissioners,  Oct.  8,  1782.     (See  Preliminaries.) 
Articles  of,  Nov.  30,  1782.     (See  Preliminaries,  Treaties.) 
Ratification  and  proclamation  of.     Mifflin  to  Franklin,  Jan.  14,  1784. 
Ratification  of.     Mifflin  to  Franklin,  Jan.  14,  1784.     (See  Preliminaries.) 
Announcement  of,  to  foreign  sovereigns.     Jay  to  Congress,  Mar.  4,  1784;  Adams 
to  Jay,  June  22,  1784. 
Peace  commissioners— 

Instructions  to.     Proceedings  of  Congress,  Sept.  28,  1779. 

From  Congress.  Action  of  Congress  as  to  instructions  to  ;  no  peremptory  instruc- 
tions given  as  to  boundaries  ;  to  undertake  nothing  without  the  knowledge 
and  concurrence  of  the  ministers  of  the  King  of  France  ;  mediation  may  be 
accepted  concurrently  with  France,  but  only  on  basis  of  independence  ;  truce 
permissible  if  substance  of  independence  bo  granted  and  territory  evacuated  ; 
substance  of  instructions  to  be  communicated  to  minister  of  France ;  Jay, 
Franklin,  Laurens,  and  Jefferson  elected  additional  commissioners,  June  6,  29, 
1781.     (See  Preliminaries.) 


204  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Pearson.     Agreement  with  J.  P.  Jones,  Oct.  3,  1779. 
Penet — 

Qnestionable  conduct  of.     Dearie  to  Committee,  Aug.  18,  1776. 
Cautious  as  to  dealing  with.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Jan.  17,  1777. 
Business  position  of.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  11,  1778. 
Ahscoudiug  and  insolvency  of.     Franklin  to  Morris,  Dec.  14,  1782. 
Pennsylvania  — 

President  of  council  of.     From  Morris,  Sept.  20,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  President  of  Council  of  Pennsylvania,  same  date,  j 
Speaker  of  assembly  of.     From  Morris,  Sept.  28,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Speaker  of  Assembly  of  Pennsylvania,  same  date.) 
French  purchasers  of  real  estate  in.     Livingston  to  Moore,  Sept.  8,  1780 ;  Livingston 
to  Luzerne,  Sept.  12, 1780. 
Peters.    From  Franklin,  Sept.  12,  1777. 

(See  Franklin  to  Peters,  same  date.) 
Petition  to  King  of  Great  Britain  of  1775.     Franklin's  account  of.     Franklin  to 
Thomson  Feb.  5,  1775.     (See  Franklin^s  narrative  of  Mar.  22,  1775 ;  L'ranklin  to 
Priestley,  July  7,  1778.) 
Petrie.     Statement  of,  discredited.     A.  Lee  to  Congress,  Apr.  26,  1779. 

Quarrel  with  W.  Lee  as  to  who  betrayed  diplomatic  secrets.     Introduction,  §  177. 
Phelps.     From  Morris,  Mar.  30, 1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Phelps,  same  date.) 
Philadelphia — 

Capture  of,  by  Howe.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  6,  1777. 
Discreditable  conduct  of  British  in,  in  1778.     lutroductiou,  i^^  23. 
Heartlessness  of  abandonment  of  loyalists  in.     Ibid.,  ^  24. 
Evacuation  of,  by  British.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  June  21,  1778, 
Mutiny  in,  in  1783.     Bondinot  to  Congress,  July  15,  1783. 
Phillimore— 

His  view  as  to  the  effect  of  the  treaties  between  France  and  the  United  States, 

and  the  consequent  declaration  of  war.     Introduction,  ^S  49. 
View  of,  as  to  French  neutrality  in  1777.     Ibid.,  $  102. 
Pickering— 

Croakings  of,  deprecated.     Adams  to  Dana,  Feb.  8,  1781. 
His  unfriendliness  to  Washington.     Introduction,  *)  11. 
Pillage.     British,  in  war.     (See  Britain.) 
Piracy— 

Act  of,  in  betrayal  by  crew  of  vessel  to  enemy.     Franklin  et  al.  to  Germaine,  Feb. 

7,  1777. 
May  include  British  seizures  of  foreign  ships  without  declaration  of  war.   Frank- 
lin to  Dumas,  Jan.  18,  1781. 
Pliarne,  Penet  &  Co.    To  receive  prizes  at  all  French  ports  except  Bordeaux,  Dun- 
kirk, and  Havre  de  Grace.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  24,  1776.     (See 
Penet.) 
Pledge  of  commissioners  at  Paris  as  to  separate  peace,  Feb.  2,  1777. 
Pitt,  William — 

The  father.     (See  Chatham.) 

The  son.     Policy  of,  towards  America.     Introduction,  §32. 
Plurality  of  envoys.     Impolicy  of  having.     Ibid.,  kS  106. 
Pope's  nuncio  to  Congress.    As  to  toleration  of  a  bishop  in  the  United  States,  July 

28,  1783. 
Portail — 

Contract  with,  Feb.  13,  1777. 

Letter  commending.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Nov.  24,  1781. 
(See  Du  Portail,  Introduction,  ^^  78.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  205 

Portland,  Duko  of.     Views  as  to  importance  of  :i  minister  from  tbo  United  States  at 

London.     Laurens  to  Ministers  at  Paris,  An*;.  9,  178^i. 
Ports.   Those  open  to  America  in  1777.    Commissioners  to  Commitice,  Jan.  17,  1777. 
Portugal— 

Interview  with  ambassador  of;  war  threatened  between  Spain  and.  Dean e  to 
Committee,  Aug.  18,  177(3. 

Declaration  of  war  against,  advised.     Beanmarchais  to  Committee,  Sept.  15, 1776. 

Commission  should  bo  issued  to  seize  ships  of.     Dcane  to  Morris,  Sept.  17,  1776. 

Commission  against,  demanded  by  friends  in  Europe.  Deane  to  Committee,  Oct. 
1, 1776. 

Reported  compliance  with  demand  of  England  for  surrender  of  American  vessels. 
Committee  to  Deane,  Oct.  1,  1776. 

King  of,  dead.     Deane  to  Committee,  Dec.  12,  1776. 

Injurious  proclamation  of  Government  of,  protested  against.  Franklin  to  Ponte 
de  Lima,  Apr.  26,  1777;  Franklin  to  Portuguese  Minister,  Apr.  26,  1777 

Forbids  bringing  i)rize8  into  her  ports.     (See  Carmichael.) 

Agency  in.     Lovell  to  Dohrman,  July  11, 1780. 

Closes  her  ports  to  prizes  by  armed  vessels.  Carmichael  to  Congress,  Sept.  1>,  1780; 
Adams  to  Congress,  Oct.  6, 1780. 

Position  of,  as  to  armed  neutrality.     Vergennes  to  Luzerne,  Feb.  14, 1781. 

Refuses  to  join  the  armed  neutrality.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Feb.  22,  1781. 

Position  of,  in  politics.     Jag  to  Congress,  Apr.  25, 1781. 

Minister  of.     Franklin  to,  as  to  Portuguese  iirohibitions,  July  1, 1782. 

Treaty  with.     Franklin,  to  Livingston,  June  13,  July  22,  1783. 

Commerce  of.    luformatoin  as  to.    Adams  to  Livingston,  Aug.  1, 1783. 

Negotiations  with.     I^ranklin  to  Congress,  Sept.  13, 1783. 
PowxALL,  Governor.     Desires  to  be  sent,  conjointly  with  Franklin,  to  America  to 
settle  the  diiferences.     Franklin's  narrative  of  negotiations  at  London,  Mar.  22, 
1775.     (For  notice  of  him  see  same) 
Predictions  of  British  campaigns.   Erroneous.      Introduction,  ^^  150, 151. 
Preliminaries  of  peace  of  1782 — 

Debate  of  Congress  thereon  ;  objections  to  the  exclusion  of  France  from  the  nego- 
tiations; particular  objections  to  separate  article  ;  feeling  of  Vergennes  and 
Luzerne  at  the  exclusion  of  France,  and  particularly  of  Louis  XVI.  Con- 
gress, Mar.  12,  1783. 

Opinions  expessed  in  Congress  as  to  communicating  separate  article  to  France; 
general  debate  as  to  the  propriety  of  excluding  France.  Congress,  Mar.  12, 
18,19,22,24,26,1783. 

England  could  have  obtained  no  better  terms  by  delay.  Adams  to  Vaughan,  Mar. 
12,  1783. 

Analysis  and  opinion  as  to.  Livingston  to  Washington,  Mar.  12,  1783  ;  Madison  to 
Randolph,  Mar.  12,  1783. 

Separate  article  should  be  communicated  to  France.  Livingston  to  Congress,  Mar. 
18,  1783  ;  Livingston  to  Commissioners,  Mar.  25,  1783. 

Not  settling  peace  absolutely,  but  preparations  should  be  made  for  next  campaign. 
Luzerne  to  Washington,  Mar.  15,  1783 ;   Washington  to  Luzerne,  Mar.  19,  1783. 

The  article  as  to  loyalists  should  have  been  more  definite ;  the  course  of  the  com- 
missioners in  withholding  the  negotiations  from  France  and  not  communi- 
cating the  separate  article  open  to  grave  censure.  Livingston  to  Commission- 
ers,Mar.  25,  1783;  Livingston  to  Franklin,  Mar.  26,  1783. 

Ratified  before  arrival  of  definitive  treaty,  except  separate  article,  which  became 
inoperat'ive,  Apr.  21,  1783. 

Separate  article  explained.    Adams,  Franklin  and  Jay  to  Livingston,  July  18,  1783. 
''Presents"  TO  foreign  officials  on  treaty-making.    The  United  States  do  not 
give.     Livingston  to  Dana,  May  1, 1783;  Proceedings  of  Congress,  May  21,  1783. 
(See  Gratuities.) 


206  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

President  of  Pennsylvania.     From  Morris,  Jan.  20, 1783. 

(See  Morris  to  President  of  Fennsylvania,  same  date.)     (See  Beed.) 
Price,  Dr. — 

Resolutions  of  Cougress  as  to,  Oct.  G,  1778. 

From  Commissioners.    Invitation  to   the  United  States  to  advise  as  to  finances, 

Dec.  7,  1778. 
(See  Commissioners  to  Price,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Declines  a  financial  post  in  the  United  States,  Jan.  18,  1878.     (See 

note  for  notice  of.) 
To  A.  Lee.     Declines  position  in  America,  Jan.  18,  1779. 
Priestley.    From  Franklin,  July  7,  1775. 

(See  Franklin  to  Priestleij,  same  date.     See  note  for  notice  of.) 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  13,  1775. 

(See  Franklin  to  Priestley,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin  (probably),  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Priestley,  same  date.) 
"  Prince  Ferdinand."     Suggested  as  commander-in-chief.     Deane  to  Committee,  Dec. 

6,  1776. 
Pringle,  interview  with  Franklin.     Pringle  to  Izard,  April  26,  1778. 
Prisoners,  American,  ill-treatment  of,  by  British.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar. 
12,  1777  ;  Franklin  to  Cooper,  Dec.  11, 1777  ;  Commissioners  to  Lord  Is^orth,  Dec. 
12,  1777.      (See  Britain.) 
(See  Franklin  to  Hartley ;  and  see  also  Ethan  Allen.) 
Better  treatment  of,  called  for.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Oct  14, 1777. 
Exchange  of.     Commissioners  to  Sartine,  May  14 ;  Aug.  13, 1778 ;  Sartine  to  Com- 
missioners, Aug.  16,  1778;  Commissioners  to  Committee,  Sept.  17, 1778 ;  Franklin 
to  Hartley,   Feb.  2,  1780;  Franklin  to  Jay,  Apr.  24,  1782.     And  see  further 
references,  index,  Franklin. 
British,  in  France.     Commissioners  to  Sartine,  July  16,  1778. 
Taken  in  America.    Gerard  to  Congress,  July  14,  1778. 
American,  in  England.     Address  of  commissioners  to,  Sept.  20,  1778. 
Taken  by  France,  when  compelled  to  serve  in  British  army.     Commissioners  to 
Prisoners,  Oct.  15,  1778;  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  26,  Nov.  14,  1778;  Com- 
missioners to  Sartine,  Oct.  30,  1778. 
Exchange  and  relief  of,  in  England.     Commissioners  to  Sartine,  Nov.  13,  1778. 
Bad  treatment  of,  in  England.     Commissioners  to  Sartine,  Nov.  13,  1778 ;  Commis- 
sioners to  Vergennes,  Jan.  1,  1779;   Sartine  to  Commissioners,  Jan.   13,   1779; 
Franklin  to  Hodgson,  Feb.  26, 1780;  Franklin  to  Congress,  Mar.  4, 1780;  Franklin 
to  Jay,  Aug.  3,  1781 ;  Franklin  to  Congress,  Nov.  5,  1781 ;  Livingston  to  Dana, 
May  29,  1782. 
Held  in  England  as  rebels.    Note  to  Commissioners  to  Committee,  March  12,  1777. 
Exchange  of,  between  France  and  England.     Adams  to  Congress,  May  3, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Committee,  May  25,  1779  ;  May  31,  1780. 
American,  reliet  to,  in  France.     Franklin  to  Schiceighauser,  Sept.  17,  1779. 
Proposed  final  release  of.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Apr.  5,  1782;  Livingston  to  Wash- 
ington, May  29,  1783;  Livingston  to  Greene,  Apr.  12,  1783;   Washington  to  Liv- 
ingston, Apr.  22,  1783;  Franklin  to  Livingston,  July  22,  1783. 
Privateering — 

An  effective  diplomatic  agency.     Introduction,  $  I. 

Activity  in  New  England  in.     Morris  to  Commissioners,  Dec.  21,  1776. 

English  resorting  to,  in  1777.     Note  as  to,  in  letter  of  J?.n.5,  1777  ;  so  in  letter  of 

Feb.  14,  1777. 
Importance  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  Sept.  16, 1780. 

Proclamation  of  the  States- General  encouraging.  Adams  to  Congress,  Jan,  18, 1781. 
Plan  for  surrender  of.     Franklin  to  Oswald,  Jan.  14,  1783. 
Objected  to  by  Jay  and  Franklin.     Jay  to  Thomson,  Sept.  12, 1783, 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  207 

Privateers — 

American,  their  eifect  in  Britisli  waters.     Dcanc  to  Committee,  Oct.  8,  1776. 

Importance  of.     Dcanc  to  CotKjrcss,  Oct.  17,  1776. 

Liberality  of  Spain  to.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  17,  Nov.  27,  1776. 

Blank  commissions  asked  for.     CommissiO}icrs  to  Confprss,  Jan.  17,  1777. 

Damage  done  to  British  America  by.     Comminsione^'s  to  Committee,  Feb.  6,  1777; 
J.  Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  11,  1777. 

Captures  by.     A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  May  8,  1777. 

Proper  employment  of,  in  1777.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  May  26,  1777. 

Efficiency  of.     Carmichael  to  Bingham,  June  23,  1777. 

Vergenues,  complaint  as  to.      Veryennes  to  Commissiontrs,  July  16,  1777. 

Franklin  and  Deane  in  explanation,  July  17,  1777. 

Duties  of  neutral  powers  as  to.      Verf/ennes  to  Grand,  Aug.  21,  1777. 

English  complaints  as  to.     Deane  to  Morris,  Aug.  23,  1777. 

French  policy  is  to  secretly  favor;    their  success.     Commissioners  to  Committee, 
Sept.  8,  1777. 

Refused  entrance  in  Prussia.     Schulenberg  to  A.  Lee,  Oct.  8,  1777. 

Instructions  to,  by  Commissioners,  Nov.  21,  1777. 

Complaints  of  pillage  by.     Comynissioners  to  Committee,  Nov.  30,  1777. 

Re-imbursed  by  France  for  their  losses.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb.  28,  1778. 

Action  of  Congress  as  to  prizes  of,  May  22,  1778. 

Mutual  facilities  to  be  given  to.     Sartine  to  Commissioners,  July  27,  1778. 

Not  necessarily  made  pirates  by  want  of  commission.     Franklin,  Lee,  and  Adams 
to  Sartine,  Sept.  17,  1778. 

Regulations  as  to.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Dec.  6,  1778. 

Burden  of  management  in  France  devolved   on  Franklin.     Franklin  to  Marine 
Committee,  June  2,  1779. 

Reception  of,  in  Dutch  ports.     Amsterdam  to  States- General,  Oct.  8,  13,  1779. 

Seizure  of  prizes  of,  by  Denmark,  Dec.  22,  1779. 

Success  of.     Adams  to  Genet,  May  3,  1780. 

Vessels  fitted  out  in  France  not  to  be  commissioned  as.    Franklin  to    Tcrgennes, 
June  25,  Aug.  15,  1780. 

List  of,  taken  and  destroyed  in  the  war.     Adams  to  Congress,  July  6,  1780. 

Seizures  by.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  July  18,  1782. 

Alleged  breach  of  neutrality.     Blome  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  6,  1782. 

Alleged  unlawful  seizures  by.     Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Feb.  18,  1782;  Livingston  to 
Luzerne,  Feb.  20,  1782 ;  Livingston  to  Congress,  Feb.  21,  1782. 
Prizes.     Capture  of.     Franklin  to  Commissioners  in  Canada,  May  27,  1776. 

Easily  captured  on  English  coast.     Deane  to  Committee  Oct.  8,  1776. 

And  men  of  war.     Proctection  requested  for  American.     Committee  to  Commis- 
sioners in  Paris,  Oct.  24,  1776. 

Receiition  desired  for,  in  French  ports.     Committee  to  Commissioners  Oct.  24, 1776. 

Captain  Wickes  captures  two,  on  Franklin's  voyage  to  France.     Franklin  to  Com- 
mittee, Dec.  8,  1776;   Franklin  to  Hancock,  Dec.  8,  1776. 

Further  captures  by  American  vessels  of.     Committee  to  Commissioners  at  Paris, 
Dec.  21,  1776. 

American.     Sale  of,  in  French  ports  refused  in  1777.     Commissioners  to  Committee, 
Mar.  12,  1777. 

Plan  for  settlement  of.     Commissioners  to  Sartine,  Aug.  V3,  1778;  Sartine  to  Com- 
missioners, Aug.  16, 1778. 

Conflicting  title  to.     Sai'tine  to   Commissioners,  Sept.  16, 1778 ;    Commissioners  to 
Sartine,  Sept.  17,  1778;  Sartine  to  Commissioners,  Sept.  21, 1778. 

Reception  of,  in  Dutch  Ports.     Amsterdam  to  States-General,  Oct.  8,  13,  1779. 

Restitution  of,  by  Denmark  protested  against.     Franklin  to  Bernstorf,  Dec.  22, 
X779. 


208  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Prize  monky.     Action  of  Congress  as  to,  Mar.  11,  Mny  22,  1782. 

Produce,  American.     To  be  forwarded  to  France  in  paymenr-  of  advance-i.     Com- 
missioners to  Secret  Commitfie,  Jan.  17, 1777.    (See  Supplies,  Fratiklin, Deane). 
Providence,  ship.     Seizure  of,  complained  of  by  Denmark.     Vergennes  to  Franklin, 

Apr.  23,  1782. 
Provisions  for  France.     Gerard  to  Congress,  July  5,  1779. 

Provisional  TREATY  of  1782.     (8ee  FreUniinaries;  Adams,  Jay,  Franklin,  Livingston.) 
Prussia — See  A.  Lee,  Sch ulenherg . 

Attitude  of,  to  the  Uuited  States.     Introduction,  ^^  90. 

Non-recognition  of  Uuited  States  based  on  desire  to  use  commercial  advantages 

of  neutrality.     Ibid.  U  91,  93. 
Prospects  of  obtaining  supplies  from.     Deane  to  Committee  Aug.  18,  1776. 
Importance  of  treating  with.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  1776. 
Expected  overtures  from  the  King  of     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
Informed  of  intention  to  send  minister  to.     Commissioners  to  Schulenherg,  Apr.  19, 

1777. 
A.  Lee's  preparations  to  visit,  May,  13, 1777.    (See  A.  Lee.) 
Minister  of,  advises  A.  Lee  to  postpone  his  visit  to  Berlin.     Schnlenherg  to  A.  Lee, 

May  25,  1777. 
Reasons   for  application  to,  for  aid.     Commissioners   to  Committee,  May  25,1877. 

(See  Introduction,  ^  144.) 
A.  Lee's  arrival  at  Berlin  and  theft  of  his  papers.     A.  Lee  to  Commissioners,  June 

28,1777.    (See  Introduction,  ^^  144,193.)     (See  Frederick.) 
Advantages  to,  from  commerce  with  United  States.     A.  Lee  to  King  of  Prussia, 

June  29, 1777. 
Refnses  entrance  to  American  privateers.     Schiilenberg  to  A.  Lee,  Oct.  8,  1777. 
Declines  peremptorily  to  receive  W.  Lee.    Schulenherg  to  A.  Lee,  Nov.  28, 1777.    (See 

Introduction,  ^^§  144,177.) 
"Will  not  be  the  last  power  to  acknowledge  "  independence.    Schulenherg  to  A.  Lee) 

Dec.  18, 1777,  note.     (See  Introduction,  ^§  90,91.) 
Refuses  transit  to  British  troops.    Schulenherg  to  A.  Lee,  Dec.  23,  1777;    W.  Lee  to 

Thomson,  Jan.  2, 1778  ;  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  June  5, 1778. 
Good  wishes  for  America,  and  will  recognize  independence  of,  next  after  Frauccj 

Schulenherg  to  A.  Lee,  Jan.  16, 1778,      (See  Introduction,  <§§  90,  91.) 
Declines  to  acknowledge  American  independence.    J.  Adams  to  S.  Adams,  May  21, 

1778 ;  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  June  1, 1778. 
Gives  facilities  to  American  merchants.      TV.  Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  25, 1779. 
Correspondence  as  to  duty  of  W.  Lee  to  call  on  Prussia  to  comply  with  promise. 

to  acknowledge  independence  of  Uuited  States.    Lsard  and  A.  Lee  to  TV.  Lee, 

June  23, 1779. 
Attitude  of,  to  the  Uuited  States  in  1781.     W.Lee  to  Congress,  Feb,  10, 1781.    (See 

Introduction  ^$  90,  91.), 
Further  negotiations  with.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  2, 1784. 
Public  DEBT.     (See  Morris.) 
Pulaski.     Recommendations  of.     Franklin  to  Washington,  June  13,1777. 

PULTENEY— 

Services  of,  as  a  peace  intermediary.     Introduction,  ^  203. 

Asks  Franklin  for  an  interview.  Mar.  29,  1778. 

From  Franklin.     Informed  that  independence  is  a  sine  qua  non.  Mar.  30,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Pulteney,  same  date  ;  and  see  Franklin  to  Bancroft,  Apr.  16, 1778. 
Franklin's  disapproval  of  his  suggestions  of  peace.     Franklin  to  Reedy  Mar.  19, 
1780. 
Puritanism.     An  element  in  American  politics.     Introduction,  §^  8,  146,  156,,209,  jf» 
Radiere.    Estate  of.    Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Apr.  17,  1782. 


PKELIMINAUY    INDEX.  209 

Kandolpii — 

From  Madison,  May  14,  1782. 

(See  Madison  to  Randolph,  Kiiiiie  date.) 
From  Madison,  Sept.  24,  ITH'J. 

(See  Madison  to  BandoJpli,  same  date.) 
From  Madison,  Sept.  :U),  178J.) 

(See  Madison  to  liatidolph,  same  date.) 
From  Madison,  Mar.  12,  178:3. 

(See  M((di.son  to  Iiaudolph,  same  date.) 
Frotii  Madison,  Mar.  18,  1783. 

(See  Madison  to  Randolph,  same  date.; 
From  Madison,  Apr.  1,  1783. 

(See  Madison  to  Randolph,  same  date.) 
From  Madison,  Sept.  13,  1783. 

(See  Madison  to  Randolph,  same  date.) 
Ranger,  sliip.    Prizes  of.     Cominissioni rs  to  IVdliams,  May  2.5,  1778. 
Raiification  BY  George  III  of  preliminary  articles  of  treaty,  Aug.  6,  1783. 

(See  Preliminaries  r>/1782. 
Ratification  of  definitiv^e  treaty.     (See  JJi-Jinitice  Inafy.) 
Ratification  of  treaties.     Form  of.     Hartley  to  Franklin,  Jiiue  1,  1784;  Franklin 

to  Hartleti,  Jiiue  2,  1784. 
Ray  de  Ciiaumont.     (See  Channiont.) 
Rayneval — 

Position  of.     lutroduction,  ^>  41. 

Report  ou  America  of,  Mar.,  1776.     (See  Ibid,  ^  36.) 

From  Franklin,  Mar.  11,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Rayneval,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  22,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Rayneval,  same  date.) 
To  Adams,  July  9,  1781. 

To  Franklin.     As  to  overtures  of  peace,  Apr.  12,  1782. 
Participation  in  peace  negotiations.     (See  Franklin^s  journal,  given  under  date  of 

July  1,  1782.) 
Hismission  to  England  one  of  investigation.     Franklin  to  JAvingston,  Oct.  14,  1782. 
Discussion  witb,  as  to  Mississippi  Valley.     Jay  to  Liriny-ston,  Nov.  19,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  signatures  of  treaties,  Aug.  29,  1783. 
Parting  tribute  to  Franklin.     Introduction,  ^  128. 

Raynal's  History.     Observations  on.     Paine  to  Morris,  Nov.  26,  1781. 
Rkcaptures.     French  and  Dutch  convention  as  to.     Adams  to  Congress,  May  25, 1781, 
Reckivers  of  Continental  taxes.     From  Morris,  Apr.  7, 1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Receivers  of  Continental  Taxes,  same  date.) 
Reciprocity — 

The  proper  basis  of  commercial  treaties.     Jay  to  Thomson,  Sept.  12,  1783;  J<(y 

to  Livingston,  Sept.  18, 1783. 
To  be  the  basis  of  commercial  treaties.     Resolution  of  Congress,  Oct.  29, 178:5. 
Reconciliation — 

Plan  of.     Lord  Chatham's.     Franklin  to   Thomson,  Feh.  5, 177b.     (Hee  Franklin^s 

narrative  of  negotiations  at  iMndon,  Mar.  22, 177.5.) 
Submitted  to  Lord  Howe  by  Franklin.      Franklin^ s  narrative  of  negotiations  at 

London,  Mar.  22, 1775. 
Proposed  by  Barclay  and  Fothergill.     Franklin,  s  narrative  of  negotiations  at  Lon- 
don, "Siaw^-i,  177  b. 
Lord  Howe's  mission  of.     Howe  to  Franklin,  June  20, 1776. 
Lord  Howe  without  power  to  make  terms  of.     Hoive  to  Franklin,  Aug.  16, 1776. 


210  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Rbconciliation— Coutinued. 

Not  possible  unless  iu dependence  of  the  United  States  is  acknowledged  by  Eng- 
land, Dec.  21,  1776. 
Between  America  and  Britain.     No  prospects  of,  in  June,  1777.    Dearie  to  Dumas, 

June  7,  1777. 
Not  possible  until  independence  is  acknowledged.     Congress,  Nov.  24,  1777. 
Reed,  President  of  Pennsylvania — 

To  Gerard.     As  to  Holker  affair.  July  31,  177U. 
From  FranJdin,  Mar.  9,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Feed,  same  date.) 
From  La  FayeHe,  May  31,  1780. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Reed,  same  date.) 
Refugees  in  England  — 

Mischief  done  by.     Introduction,  §  28. 

Maltreatment  of,  by  British.     Ibid.,  $  24.     (See  Loyalists.  Tories.) 

Instruction  of  Congress  against  restoration  of,  Oct.  18,  1776. 

Mischievous  influence  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  June  17,  1780. 

Evil  effects  of,  iu  England  ;  should  not  be  tolerated.     Adams  to  Cnshing,  Dec.  15, 

1780. 
Restoration  of  property.    Question  as  to.     Oswald  to  Commissioners, '^oy.  4,  1782; 

Strachey  to  Conunissioners,  Nov.  5,  1782;  Adams''  diary,  Nov.  20,  1782. 
Cannot  be  granted.     Commissioners  to  Oswald,  Nov.  5,  1782.    (See  Loyalists,  Tories.) 
Opposition  of  commissioners  to  re-instatement  of.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Nov.  11, 
1782;  Adams''  journal,  Nov.  11,  1782,  et  seq.;  FranMin  to  Oswald,  Nov.  26, 1782. 
Rendon,  F. — 

To  Congress.     Application  for  relief,  Sept.  24,  1781. 
From  Livingston,  June  6,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Eendon,  same  date). 
Reprisal,  ship.    To  cruise  in  European  waters.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  24, 

1776. 
Resolution,  ship.     Case  of.     Luzerne  to  Livingston,  Feb.  18,  1782;  Livingston  to  Lu- 
zerne, Feb.  20,  1782 ;  Livingston  to  Congress,  Feb.  21,  1782. 
Revolution  of  1776 — 

Justice  and  necessity  of.     Introduction,  ^  20. 

Distinct  schools  of  statesmen  in  liberative  and  constructive.     Ibid.,  ^  81,  jf. 
Constitutional  development  under.     Ibid.,  ^^S  209,.^. 
Revolutions,  British.     Parallelisms  with  our  own.     Ibid., '^  S. 
Reynst,     From  J.  P.  Jones,  Dec.  17, 1779, 

{See  Jones  to  Beynsf,  same  date.) 
Rhode  Island.    Appeal  to  governor  of,  for  funds,     Morris  to  Governors  of  States,  Jan. 

14,  1782,  and  on  other  dates. 
Richmond,  Duke  of.    Speech  on  the  plan  of  reconciliation.  Franldin  to  Thomson,Feh. 

5,  1775. 
Ridley,  M.    Papers  on  naval  affairs  sent  by.     Commissioners  to  Congress,  Nov.  7, 1778. 
Rives,  Minister  at  Paris.    Settlement  of  Beaumarchais'  claim.     Introduction,  ^^  71. 
Rivjngton — 

Remains  in  New  York  after  evacuation.     Livingston  to  Jay,  Nov,  29, 1783. 
Publication  by,  of  tory  papers.     Introduction,  ^^  21,  ff.,  163. 

ROCHAMBEAU— 

From  Morris,  Sept.  6, 1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Eochambeau,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  1,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Fochambean,  same  date.) 
Commands  French  army  at  Yorktown.     Livingston  to  Dana,  Oct.  22, 1781,  note. 
From  Morris,  Nov.  15,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Eochambeau,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  211 

RocHAMBEAU — Continued. 

To  Luzerne.     As  to  French  campaign,  Apr.  16,  1782. 
From  Luzerne,  June  14,  l/S^. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Rochamhcau,  same  date.) 
Presentation  of  cannon  to.      ]Vashui(jton  to  Morris,  Dec.  20,  1782. 
Testimonial  of  Congress  to,  .Jan.  1,  1783. 
Action  of  Congress  as  to,  May  1,  1783. 
RociiFORD,  Lord — 

Sent  to  French  court  by  Great  Britain. 
Deane  to  Comviiitee,  Aug.  18,  177G. 

Beaumarcliais'  reply  to.      Vcrgenves  to  Bcaumarchais,  Apr.  26,  1776. 
"Rockingham  whigs."    Policy  of,  to  grant  absolute  independence.     latroduction, 

^S  31. 
Rodney,  Admiral — 

Character  and  movements  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  3,  4,  10,  1780. 
Engagement  of  on  Apr.  7,  1780.     Adams  to  Congress,  .June  1,  1780. 
"RoDiiiQUES  Hortalez  &  Co."     Relations  of.     Introduction,  ^n  61. 
Rogers — 

Recommended  as  aid  to  Coudray.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  27,  1776. 
Will  give  information  of  affairs  in  England.     Deane  to  Jag,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
RoiiAN,  Grand  Master  of  Malta — 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  6,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Grand  Master  of  Malta,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.    Acknowledging  medal,  June  21,  1783. 
Roman  Catholic  bishop  for  America.     (See  Franklin  to  Fergennes,  Dec.  15,  1783.) 
RoMiLLY.     Tribute  of,  to  Franklin.     Introduction,  ^S  123. 

Rosencrone.     To  Waltersdorff.     As  to  Danish  negotiations  with  the  United  States, 
Feb.  22,  1783. 
(See  Franklin  to  Rosencrone,  Apr.  13,  1783.) 
Ross — 

Ship-building  under  direction  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Nov.  30,  1777. 
From  Commissioners.     Difficulties  as  to  settlement  with,  Apr.  13, 1778. 

(See  Franklin,  Lee,  and  Adams  to  Boss,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  26,  1778. 

(See  Eoss  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners.     Called  on  for  an  account,  Sept.  30, 1778. 

(See  Commissioners  to  Boss,  same  date.) 
Agent  of  Congress,  commended.     Franklin  to  Congress,  May  31, 1780. 
"  Rum."     Question  as  to  export  of,  raised  by  treaty  of  1778.     Introduction,  $  46. 
Rush  to  Adams.     Political  afiairs  in  the  United  States,  Apr.  28, 1780. 
Russia— 

Attitude  of,  to  the  United  States.     Introduction,  ^S  92. 

Non-recognition  of  United  States  based  on  desire  to  use  commercial  advantages 

of  neutrality.     Ibid.,  v\  93.     (See  Catherine.) 
Preparations  to  send  a  commissioner  to  court  of.     Committee  to  Commissionersy 

Dec.  30,  1776. 
Improbability  of  British  aid  from.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12,  1777. 
Political  position  of.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  July  29,  1777. 
Neutrality  observed  by.     Adams  to  Congress,  Apr.  10,  1780. 
Strong  position  taken  in  armed  neutrality  by.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9,  1780; 

Carmichael  to  Committee,  Aug.  23,  1780. 
Expected  to  resent  the  declaration  of  war  by  England  against  Holland.     Car- 
michael to  Committee,  Jan.  4,  1781. 
Empress  of,  indignant  at  the  memorial  of  Sir  Joseph  Yorke.     Adams  to  Congress, 
Jan  14,  1781. 


212  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Russia — Contiuued . 

Treaty  between  Denmark  and  Norway,  Sweden,  Holland,  and.     Adams  to  Congress, 

Feb.  1,  1781. 
Conduct  of  tbe  embassador  of.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Feb.  22,  1781. 
Mediation  of.     Papers  relative  to,  given  under  date  of  Mar.  12,  1781. 
Offers  to  mediate  between  England  and  Holland.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  18, 

17rtl. 
Franklin's  advice  to  Dana  in  regard  to  bis  conduct  on  bis  mission  to.     Dana  to 

Congress,  Mar.  28,  1781. 
Communicating  appointment  as  minister  to.     Dana  to  Fergennes,  Mar.  31,  1781. 
Departure  for,  delayed  for  Vergenues'  answer  to  tbis  announcement  of  bis  mis- 
sion.    Dana  to  Congress,  Mar.  31,  1781. 
Fears  tbat  Vergenues  will  put  obstacles  in  tbe  way  of  bis  departure  on  bis  mission 

to.     Dana  to  Congress,  Apr.  2,  1781. 
Interview  witb  Vergennes  as  to  bis  mission  to.     Dana  to  Congress,  Apr.  4,  1781. 
Advice  as  to  conduct  on  bis  mission  to,  asked.     Adams  to  Franklin,  Apr.  6,  1781. 
Empress  of.     Separate  mediation  of,  for  Holland.     Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  16, 

1781. 
Request  of  Jennings  tbat  be  will  accompany  Dana  ou  bis  mission  to.     Dana  to 

Jennings,  Apr.  26,  1781. 
Mediation  of,  between  Holland  and  Britain  accepted.     Adams  to  Congress,  Dec. 

12,  25,  1781. 
Position  of,  as  to  neutral  duties.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  15,  1782. 
Interest  of,  conflicting  witb  tbat  of  France.     Adams'  journal,  Dec.  9,  1782. 
Averse  to  tbe  American  cause.     Dana  to  Livingston,  note.  May  2,  1783. 
Views  as  to  tbe  armed  neutrality  proposed  by.     Livingston  to  Congress,  June  3, 

1783. 

Proceedings  of  Congress  as  to  mission  to,  May  21,  22,  1783. 

Ofidcial  papers  as  to.     (^ee  Dana.) 
RuTLEDGE,  Edward — 

One  of  tbe  committee  tbat  conferred  witb  Lord  Howe.     Conference  of  Franklin 

with  Lord  Howe,  Sept.  11,  1776. 
To  Jay.     Warns  against  cabal  against  Wasbington,  Dec.  25,  1778. 
Views  of,  as  to  instructions  to  peace  commissioners.     Congress,  Aug.  8,  1782. 
Sackville,  Lord  (previously  Lord  George  Germain),  Britisb  colonial  minister  from 

1775  to  1782.     Notice  of  ;  bostility  to  America.     Introduction,   t^^  27,  note. 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Colden,  Feb.  14, 1776.) 
Sa^akies — 

Of  diplomatic    agents.     Standard  of.     Introduction,  ^S    108.    (See  Livingston  to 

Congress,  May  8,  9,  1782;  Morris  to  Congress,  May  8,  1782;    Franklin  to  Liv- 
ingston, Oct.  14,  1782;  and  see  Expenses,  Ministers,  Diplomatic  agents.) 
Of  unemployed  ministers.     (See  Izard,  Lee,  W.) 

Of  foreign  ministers.     Plan  to  regulate.     J.  Adams  to  S.  Adams,  Feb.  21,  1778. 
Action  to  be  taken  in  respect  to.     Livingston  to  Congress,  Nov.  18,  1781. 
Diplomatic.     Wbat  expeqses  tbey  are  to  cover.     Franklin  to  Adams,  June  11, 

1783.     (See  Expenses.) 
Saltpeter.    Attempts  to  make.     Franklin  to  Dumas,  Dec.  19,  1775, 
Salva  to  Franklin  as  to  Algiers,  Apr.  1,  1783, 
Sandwich,  Lord — 

His  insults  to  America.     Introduction,  ^  21. 

His  estimate  of  damage  done  by  American  privateers.     Commissioners  to  CommiU 

tee,  Feb.  6,  1777.     Note  as  to  bis  cbaracter,  id. 
Saratoga,  battle  of— 

Announcement  of.     Harrison  et  al.  to  Commissioners  at  Paris,  Oct.  18,  1777, 
Importance  of  event.     Note  to  same. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  213 

Saratoga,  battle  of— Cod  tinned. 

Inlineuce  of,  in  France.     Introdnction,  'J  44. 
Sartine,  French  minister  of  marine — 

To  Commissioners.     Protection  to  American  commerce,  Apr.  20,  1778  (note  as  to). 
From  Commissioners,  May  14, 1778. 

(See  FranJdin,  Lee,  and  Adams  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Conimissioners,  Jnne  3,  1778. 

(See  Franklin,  Lee,  and  Adams  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     As  to  Pa.nl  Jones,  Jnne  G,  1778. 
From  Conimissioners,  Jnne  15, 1778. 

{See  Fran K-Jin,  Lee,  and  Adams  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     As  to  American  supplies  for  St.  Pierre  and  Mignelon,  July  14, 

1778. 
From  Commissioners,  July  IG,  1778. 

(See  Sartine  to  Franliin  et  ah,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     As  to  relief  of  St.  Pierre  and  facilities  for  privateers,  July  29, 

1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Aug.  13, 1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  and  Adams  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Plan  for  regulating  privateers,  Aug.  IG,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Aug.  1*^,  1778. 

(See  FranJilin  et  al.  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Sept.  10, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     As  to  title  to  prizes,  Sej)t.  IG,  1778. 
Reply  of  commissioners,  Sept.  17, 1778. 

To  Ccmmisaioners.     As  to  the  Jsahella,  Capt.  McNeil,  Sept.  21, 1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Oct.  2, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Oct.  12, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Sartine,    same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Oct.  13,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     As  to  American  seamen  in  France,  Oct.  2G,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Oct.  30,  1778. 

(See  Commissioners  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     As  to  Flenry's  case,  and  as  to  prisoners,  Nov.  12,  14,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Nov.  15,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Jan.  2,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  ASartine,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.    As  to  relief  of  prisoners,  Jan.  13,  1779. 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  25,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     As  to  his  departure,  Feb.  28,  1779. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  2,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  18,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  23,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  May  8,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Saj'iine,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Oct.  6,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  19,  1779. 


214  PKELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Sartine,  Freucli  niiuister  of  marine — Continued. 

To  Adams.     Personal  as  to  Lis  voyage,  Dec.  31,  1779. 

(See  FranJiHn  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  13,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  FranUin,  Mar.  20,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  May  30,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  27,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Sartine,  same  date.) 
Replaced  as  minister  of  marine  by  Castries.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Dec.  3,  1780. 
Savages.     Employment  of,  denounced.     Introduction,  v^  22. 
Saxony.   Proposition  for  minister  to  the  United  States.    Gorsdorff  to  Carmichael,  July 

28,  1783  ;  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  July  29,  Aug.  20, 1783. 
Sayre,  Stephen,  one  of  Wilkes'  sheriffs  and  secretary  to  Arthur  Lee — 
Disreputable  character  of.     Introduction,  »&§  146,  150,  192,^'. 
Goes  to  Berlin  as  secretary  to  A.  Lee.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  June  11,  1777. 
Schlosser.     Opinion  of,  of  Arthur  Lee.     Introduction,  *^  145. 
Schuyler— 

From  Morris,  May  29,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Schuyler,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Sept.  16,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Schuyler,  same  date.) 
Schulenberg,  Prussiau  minister. 

From  Commissioners  at  Paris.     Stating  intention  of  sending  envoy  to  Berlin,  Apr. 

19,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee.     Saying  he  proposes  to  make  the  journey  as  minister  to  Berlin,  May 

8,  1777. 
To  A.  Lee.     Hoping  he  will  not  come.  May  20,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  June  5,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Schulenberg,  same  date.) 
From   A.  Lee,  June  7,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Sehulenherg,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     Who  can  be  received  at  Berlin  only  in  a  private  capacity,  June  9, 

1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  June  10,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Sehulenherg,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     Will  consider  as  to  commercial  intercourse,  June  18,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  June  20,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Sehulenherg,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     Will  inquire  as  to  i^rivateerS,  June  26,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  Aug.  13,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Sehulenherg,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Sept.  21,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Sehulenherg,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     Refusing  American  privateers  entrance  in  Prussia,  Oct.  8,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  Oct.  23,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Sehulenherg,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Nov.  13,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Schulenberg,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     Peremptorily  refuses  to  receive  him,  Nov.  28,  1777. 
From  A.  Lee,  Dec.  11,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Schulenberg,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     May  hereafter  acknowledge  the  United  States,  Dec.  18,  1777. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  215 

ScHULENBERG,  Prussiaii  minister— ContiiHKMl. 

Tt)  J.  Lee  refuses  transit  to  British  trooi^s,  Dec.  23,  1777. 
From  A.Lee,  Feb.  2,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Schuhnherg,  same  date.) 
To  J.  Lee,  expressive  of  ^ood  feelings,  Jan.  16,  1778. 
Frojn  J.  Lee,  Oct.  21,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Sclmlenherg,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Dec.  25,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Schnlenherg,  same  date.) 

SCHWEIGHAUSER — 

Business  i^osition  of.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  11,  1777. 
Duties  of.     Commissioners  to  Williams,  May  25,  1778. 
References  to.     Dearie  to  Congress,  Oct.  14,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Feb.  10,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  and  Adams  to  Schweiglianser,  same  date.) 
Expenses  of  agency  of.     Franklin  to  Committee,  May  26,  1779. 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  17,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Schweighauscr,  same  date.) 
Scotch — 

Junius'  hatred  of,  adopted  by  Arthur  Lee.     Introduction  ^  148. 
Character  of,  and  enmity  to  America.     A.  Leeio  Committee,  June  3,  1776. 
Eminent,  in  the  Revolution.    Introduction  ^  148, 

Correspondence  with,  and  with  aliens  should  be  forbidden.     A.  Lee  to  Committee, 
June  3,  1776. 
Sea-letter.     Form  of,  adopted  Feb.  6,  1778. 

Seamen,  American.     Treatment  of.     Couteulx  to  Jay,  July  4,  1780. 
Searle — 

Introduced.     Lovell  to  Dumas,  July  10,  1780. 

Visits  Europe  as  agent  for  Pennsylvania.     Lovell  to  Jay,  July  11,  1780. 
Recommended  by  Franklin.     FranUin  to  Diimm,  Sept.  8,  1780  ;  Oct.  2,  8,  1782. 
From  Franklin  Nov.  30,  1780. 
(See  Franklin  to  Searle,  same  date.) 
Sebastiani.     Settlement  of  Beaumarchais'  claim,  Introduction,  ^  71. 
Secret  article  of  preliminaries.      Discussion  of.     Adams  to  Livi^igsion,  July  9, 
1783;  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jay  to  Livingston,  July  18,  1783;  Franklin  to  Liv- 
ingston, July  22,  1783. 
Secret  correspondence.    Committee  of.    Ll)id.,^Wi.     {See  Committee.) 
"  Secret  diplomacy  " — 

Illustrated  in  case  of  Beaumarchais.     Lhid.,  $  58. 
In  case  of  Broglie.     Ibid.,  ^  76. 
Secret-service  money — 

Characteristics  of.     Ibid.,  $  70. 
Want  of,  by  Franklin.     I  bid.,  §  108. 
Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs.    Duties  of.     Congress,  Feb.  22,  1782 ;  Livingston 

to    Congress,  Jan.  25,  Feb.  23,  1782.     (See  Introduction,  ^  103,  .//".) 
Segur,  Count.    Introduction  of,  acknowledged.    Livingston  to  La  Fayette,  Nov.  2,  1782. 

(See  Introduction,  <§  78.) 
Seine,  ship — 

Sent  with  supplies  by  Beaumarchais.     Beaumarchais  to  Congress,  Feb.  28,  1777. 
Arrival  of,  at  Portsmouth,  but  captured  on  lier  return.     Committee  to  Commis- 
sioners, May  30,  1777. 
Selkirk,  Countess  of.     Seizure  and  restoration  of  property  of.     Franklin  to  Paul 

Jones,  May  27,  1778;  Feb.  24,  1779;  Franklin  to  Schweighauser,  Feb.  10,  1779. 
Separate  article  of  preliminaries  and  separate  action  of  plenipotkntiaries 
DISCUSSED  AND  EXPLAINED.    Adams  to  Livingston,  July  9, 1783  ;  Adams,  Frank- 
lin, and  Jay  to  Livingston,  July  18,  1783;  Franklin  to  Livingston,  July  22,  1783. 
(See,  also,  Introduction,  $$  53,  124,  158.) 


216  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Serapis,  ship — 

Qiiestious  relative  to.     FranMin  to  Lewis,  Mar.  17,  1781. 
Capture  of.     Narrative  of.     Paul  Jones  to  Morris,  Oct.  13,  1779, 
Sharpe,  Granville.    Friendliness  of,  to  America.    Laurens  to  Seereiarij,  Sept.  16, 17H3. 
Shelburne— 

Policy  of.     Introduction,  §  32. 
From  A,  Lee,  Dec.  23,  1776. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  ShelJnirne,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Dec.  14,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Slielhnrne,  same  date.) 
Speech  of,  on  June  12,  1780,  reported.     Adams  to  Congress,  June  12,  1780. 
From  Franldin,  May  10,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Shelburne,  same  date,  in  Franldin'' s  journal,  July  1,  1782.) 
Peace  negotiations  with,  Mar.  21  to  July  1,  1782.     (See  Franklin's  journal,  under 

dateof  July  1,  1782.) 
To  Oswald,  May  21, 1782,  is  given  in  FrankHn\s  journal ,  wm^er  date  of  July  1,  1782. 
To  Franklin,  May  28,  29,  1782,  are  given  in  Franklin's  journal,  under  date  of  July 

1,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  July  12,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Shelburne,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  peace,  Apr.  6,  1782,  given  in  Franklin's  journal,  under  date  of 

July  1,  1782. 
General  merits  of  his  course  as  to  the  peace.     Jay  to  Vaughan,  Mar.  28,  1783.     (In  • 

troduction,  ^  32.) 
Administration  of,  commended.     Adams  to  lAvingston,  June  27,  July  17,  1783. 
Policy  of.     Liberal  character  of.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  July  22,  1783. 
Sheridan  to  Grenville.     As  to  peace  negotiations.  May  21,  26,  1782. 
Sherman.     From  Adams,  Dec.  6,  1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Sherman,  same  date.) 
Ships— 

Instructions  of  Congress  to  purchase,  Oct.  22,  1776. 

British.     Plan  for  burning.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  6,  28,  1776. 

For  America  can  be  purchased  at  Leghorn.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  28,  1776; 

Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
Can  be  obtained  and  cheaply  fitted  out  in  France.     Deane  to  Committee,  Dec.  1, 

1776. 
American.     Important  work  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  May  2^^,  1777;  Com- 
missioners to  Jay,  June  2,  1777. 
Building  of,  for  the  United  States  in  Holland.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Nov. 

30,  1777. 
French.    Need  of,  in  American  waters.     Commissiomrs  to  Vergennes,  Jan.  1,  1779_ 
Taken  or  destroyed  in  the  war.     Adams  to  Congress,  July  6,  1780. 
American,  should  be   employed  more  particularly  in  cruising.     Adams  to  Con- 
gress, July  6,  1780. 
Taken  after  peace  to  be  restored.     Livingston  to  Digby,  A])r.  12,  1783. 
British.     Losses  of,  at  sea.     Adams  to  Congress,  Apr.  8,  1780. 
Dutch.     British  seizure  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  1,  1781. 
Dutch.     Capabilities  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  15,  1781. 
Shoemaker.     As  to  ill  treatment  of.    Deane  to  Dumas,  Oct.  13,  1776. 
Sicilies,  the.     Open  to  American  ships.     Commissioners  to  Embassador  for  Naples, 

Feb.  9,  1778. 
Simpson,  Captain— 

From  Commissioners.     Charges  against,  June  3,  1778. 

(See  Commissioners  to  Simjison,  same  date.) 
Commissioners  to  Paul  Jones,  June  3,  1778;  Paul  Jones  to  Commissioners,  June  16, 
1778. 


PRETJMIXARY    INDEX.  217 

Simpson,  Captain — Con  tin  nod. 

Alleged  proferment  of.      I'unI  Jones  to  Coininissioiio'S,  Ang.  I'.L  1778. 
Conitiuartial  asked  for  on.     Jones  to  Whipph',  Ang.  18,  1778. 
Conrt-niartial  of,  ordered,     Cominissioners  to  Jones,  Ang.  23,  1778. 
Relieved  from  arrest  and  appointed  to  command  with  Panl  Jones'  consent.    Frank- 
lin to  Jones,  Feb.  10,  1779. 

Smith,  Adam — 

Friendly  to  the  Revolution.     lutrodnction,  $  32. 

A  "  Scotchman  and  enemy  to  American  rights."     J.  Lee  to  Dumas,  Ang.  13, 177<). 
Appealed  to  by  Jefferson  and  Franklin.     Introdnction,  v^  4. 
Smith,  Jahleel.     Case  of.     McKean  to  Minister  of  France,  Sept.  25, 1781. 
Smith,  R. — 

From  Morris,  Jnly  17,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Smith,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  26,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Smith,  same  date.) 
Smith,  W. — 

From  Chase,  Jan.  6,  1780. 

(See  Chase  to  Smith,  same  date.) 
SouTHERX  States.     Weakness  of,  explained.    J.  Laurens  to  F(??*/7^w«e.s,  Mar.  27, 1781. 
Sovereignty  of  the  United  States.     Annonucement  of,  to  European  sovereigns. 

Adams  to  Congress,  Jnue  22, 1784 ;  Jay  to  Congress,  Mar,  4, 1785. 
Spain— 

General  relations  of,  to  the  United  States.     (See  Introduction,  $^'  80-89;    and 

see  also  Aranda,  Carmichaet,  Florida  BJanca,  Jay,  Lee,  A.) 
Interview  with  ambassador  of;  war  threatened  between  Portugal  and,    Deaneto 

Committee,  Aug.  18, 1776, 
Alliance  of,  promised,     Deane  to  Morris,  Sept.  17, 1776, 
Natural  ally  of  the  colonists,     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct,  1, 1776. 
Reported  demand  on,  for  surrender  of  American  vessels  by  England.     Committee 

to  Deane,  Oct.  1,  1776. 
Decision  of  court  of,  in  the  case  of  Captain  Lee  encouraging,     Deane  to  Committee, 

Nov.  27, 1776. 
Will  imitate  conduct  of  France  towards  the  United  States.     Deane  to  Committee, 

Dec,  1, 1776, 
Preparations  to  send  a  commissioner  to  the  court  of.     Committee  to  Commission-' 

ers,  Dec.  30,  1776, 
Condition  of  fleet  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Jan.  17, 1777. 
Probabilities  of  help  from.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Feb.  19, 1777. 
A.  Lee's  mission  to.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Mar.  8,  1777. 
Memorial  to  court  of,  Mar.  8,  1777. 

Reasons  for  aid  of,  in  1777.     A.  Lee  to  Florida  Blanca,  Mar.  17,  1777. 
Attitude  of,  to  the  United  States  in  1777.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Mar.  18,  Apr.  2, 

1777. 
Franklin  proposes  alliance  with.     FrankHu  to  Aranda,  Apr,  7,  1777, 
Remittances  of,  to  America,     (kirdoqui  to  A.  Lee,  K\}v.  28,  1777  ;  A.  Lee  to  Gardo- 

qui,  May  8,  1777. 
Does  not  answer  to  A,  Lee's  expectations.     A.  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  Aug.  18,  1777, 
Asked  to  enter  into  alliance,     A.  Lee  to  Aranda,  Dec,  9,  1777. 
Conliicting  claims  of,  with  the  United  States.     View  of  Vergenues  as  to.      Ver- 

gennes  to  Gerard,  Mar.  29,  1778. 
Probabilities  of  accession  of,  to  alliance  with  the  United  States.     Commissioners  to 

Committee,  Feb.  16,  1778. 
Expected  loan  from.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Dec.  28,  1777;  Feb,  28,  1778. 
Temporizing  conduct  of,     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Mar.  19,  1778, 


218  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Spain — Continued. 

Again  declines  visit  from  A.  Lee.     A.  Lee  to  Franklin,  Mar.  27,  1778. 

Application  to,  for  loan.     A.  Lee  to  Florida  Blanca,  July  18,  1778. 

Loans  can  not  be  obtained  from.     Gardoqiii  to  A.  Lee,  Aug.  13,  1778. 

Complains  of  capture  of  Spanish  property  in  ship  Renrica.  Gardoqai  to  A.  Lee 
Sept.  28,  1778. 

Indisposition  of,  to  treat.     A.  Lee  to  Gardoqiii,  Oct.  6,  1778. 

Relations  of  United  States  to,  discussed  in  note  to  instructions  to  Franklin  of 
Oct.  26,  1778. 

Offers  to  mediate.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Feb.  9,  1779.     (See  Introduction,  j,  98.) 

Conditions  of  x^eace  as  to.  (See  Proceedings  of  Congress  of  Feb.  23,  Mar.  17, 19,  22, 
24,  May  8,  12,  22,  June  3,  17,  19,  24,  July  1,  12,  17,  22,  24,  29,  31,  Aug.  3,  13, 
Sept,  9,  11,  25,  28,  Oct.  9,  13,  14,  1779.) 

Vessels  of.    Complaints  as  to  seizure  of.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Apr.  24,  May  19, 1779. 

Importance  of  alliance  of.     Franhlin  to  Congress,  May  26,  1779. 

Memorial  to,  by  A.  Lee,  June  6,  1779. 

Declares  war  against  England.     A.  Lee  to  Congress,  June  21,  1779. 

Miralles,  agent  for.     (See  Miralles.) 

Proposes  attack  on  Florida.  Miralles  to  Luzerne,  Nov.  25,  1779  ;  Luzerne  to  Con- 
gress, Nov.  26,  1779 ;  Huntington  to  Luzerne,  Dec.  16,  1779. 

Unfriendly  attitude  of.     Franklin  to  Carmichael,  Jan.  27,  1780. 

Position  of,  as  to  mediation.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Jan.  28,  1780. 

Views  of,  as  to  Mississippi.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Feb.  2,  1780. 

Reverses  of,  at  sea.  Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  3,  1780  ;  Franklin  to  Luzerne,  Mar. 
5,  1780. 

Information  as  to  military  movements  of.     Carmichaelto  Adams,  Apr.  22,  1780. 

Assistance  to  be  rendered  to.     Congress,  July  7,  1780. 

Bad  state  of  finances  of.     Carmichael  to  Congress,  Aug.  23, 1780. 

Inability  of,  to  raise  money.     Carmichael  to  Congress,  Sept.  9,  1780. 

Offers  to  facilitate  a  loan  to  the  United  States  of  $150,000.  Jay  to  Congress,  Sept. 
16, 1780. 

Failure  of,  to  render  pecuniary^  aid  ;  France  supplies  funds  to  take  up  bills  drawn 
on  Jay.     Franklin  to  Jay,  Oct.  2,  1780. 

Instructions  to  Jay  as  to,  Oct.  4, 1780. 

Loan  promised  by.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  4, 1781. 

Further  proposition  from  England  to,  expected  through  Abbd  Hussey.  Car- 
michael to  Committee,  Jan.  17,  1781. 

Policy  of,  towards  America ;  preparation  for  war.  Carmichael  to  Committee 
Jan.  29,  1781. 

Does  not  favor  mediation.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  29,  1781. 

Fleet  of.     Carmichael  to  Committee,  Feb.  22,  1781. 

Indifference  of,  to  the  American  cause.     McKean  to  Washington,  Aug.  12, 1781. 

Holds  back  recognizing  the  independence  of  the  United  States  and  puts  off  giving 
answers  to  Jay's  application  for  pecuniary  aid ;  elue-ve  and  unsatisfactory 
conduct  of  Spanish  minister ;  offer  made  to  surrender  to  her  navigation  of 
Mississippi  in  exchange  for  immediate  recognition  and  pecuniary  aid,  but  no 
definite  reply  (fortunately)  given.  Jay  to  Congress,  Oct.  3, 1781.  (See  Missis- 
sippi. ) 

Incapacity  of,  to  render  much  pecuniary  aid,     Franklin  to  Morris,  Nov.  5, 1781. 

Intrigues  in  court  of;  procrastination  and  poverty  of;  political  relations  of. 
Carmichael  to  Committee,  Nov.  17,  1781.  ' 

Difficulties  as  to,  in  settlement  of  peace.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Jan.  7, 1782. 

Unsatisfactory  conduct  of.     Franklin  to  Jay,  Jan.  19,  1782. 

Political  relations  of.     Carmichael  to  Livingston,  Feb.  18,  1782. 

Political  relations  of;  Jay  may  be  obliged  to  refuse  payment  of  drafts  ;  failure 
of  Government  to  remit.     Carmichael  to  Livingston,  Feb.  27,  1782. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  219 

SPAIN'-Contiuued. 

Future  lolatioiis  of,  to  the  United  States.     Livingston  to  Jiendon,  Mar.  4,  1782. 

Course  of  to  America  criticised.     La  Fayette  to  rer(jen)ies,  Mar.  20, 1782. 

Explanation  of  politics  of.     Monimorin  to  Fergennes,  Mar.  HO,  1782. 

Attitude  to  bo  maintained  to,  in  respect  to  Mississippi  Valley.     Livingston  to  Jay, 
Apr.  27,  1782  ;  Congress,  Apr.  30, 1782. 

Action  of  Congress  as  to,  Ang.  6, 1782. 

Claims  of,  as  to  western  boundary.     Jay  to  Livingston,  Nov.  7, 1782. 

Displeasure  of,  at  treaty  of  1782.     Cannichael  to  Livingston,  Dec.  30,  1782. 

Summary  of  loans  of,  to  United  States.     Livingston  to  Greene,  Jan.  4,1783. 

Relations  of,  witli  the  United  States.     (See  Carmichael.) 

No  consideration  to  be  expected  from.     Jay  to  La  Fayette,  Jan.  19,  1783. 

Unfriendliness  of,  to  the  United  States;  views  of,  as  to  the  Mississippi  Valley; 
obtains  Florida  and  Minorca.     La  Fayette  to  Livingston,  Feb.  5,  1783. 

Relations  of,  to  the  United  States  discnssed.     La  F'ayette  to  Florida  Blanca,  Ft;b. 
19,  22,  1783;  La  Fayette  to  Livingston,  Mar.  2,  1783.     (See  also  Carmichael.) 

Appointment  of  Gardoqui  as  minister  from.     (See  Gardoqui.) 
Spanish  America.     Attitude  of  Spain  in  respect  to.     Introduction,  $  86. 
Sparks — 

His  view  as  to  Franklin's  integrity.     Ibid.,  §  113. 

His  opinion  of  Beaumarchais.     Lhid.,  ^  61. 

View  of,  as  to  A.  Lee's  differences  with  Franklin.     Lhid.,  $  14.'3. 

As  to  attitude  of  France  in  neace  negotiations.     Note  to  Jay  to   Livingston,  of 
Nov.  17,  1782. 

His  method  of  editing.     (See  Preface,) 
Spies,  British — 

Notices  of.     Introduction,  ^k!i  204,^. 

Obtaining  confidence  of  A.  Lee.     IMd.,  '^  151.     (See  Britain.) 
Spoliations,  British.     Report  of,  to  be  sent  to  minister  at  Paris,  Sept.  10,  1782. 

American,  during  war.     Liability  for.     Morris  to  Congress,  Jan.  21,  1784. 
St.  Christopher.     Capitulation  of.     Luzerne  to  LAvingston,  Jan.  10,  1783. 
St.  Eustatia.     Capture  and  plunder  of.     Dumas  to  Congress,  March  22,  1781. 

Recapture  of.     Livingston  to  Jay,  Feb.  2,  1782.     (See  Dumas.) 
St.  Pierre,  Island  of— 

Recommended  to  Congress  for  aid.     Sartine  to  Commissioners,  July  14,  1778. 

Answer  of  commissioners  as  to,  July  16,  1778. 
Stamp  act.     Franklin's  course  in  respect  to.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Mar.  12, 1778. 
Stanhope,  Lord.     Communications  with  Franklin  in  1775.     Franklin^ s  narrative  of 

the  negotiations  at  L.ojidon. 
Stanley.     Sent  to  France  by  British  Government  to  watch  Deane.     Deane  to  Coin- 

niittee,  Aug.  18,  1776;    TV.  Lee  to  Dumas,  Sept.  10, 1776. 
States,  American — 

Theories  as  to  independence  of.     Introduction,  §^  4,  209  ff. 

Difficulties  from  sejjarate  foreign  agencies  of.     Franklin  1o  Congress,  May  31,  1780; 
Franklin  to  Morris,  Dec.  25, 1782. 

Purchases  by,  not  to  be  held  to  be  purchases  on  account  of  the  Union.     Morris  to 
Luzerne,  Nov.  26,  1781. 
States-General,  Dutch — 

Position  of,  as  to  America.     (See  Adams,  Dumas,  Franklin,  Netherlands.) 

From  College  of  Admiralty  of  Amsterdam,  Oct.  8,  1779. 

(See  College  of  Admiralty  of  Amsterdam  to  States- General,  same  date.) 

From  Yorke,  Oct.  29,  1779. 

(See  Yorke  to  States- General,  same  date.) 

From  Adams,  Mar.  8,  1781. 
(See  Adams  to  States- General,  same  date.) 


220  PRELIMINARY    INLEX. 

States-General,  Dutch — Continued. 
From  Adams,  Apr.  19,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  States- General,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  1,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  States-General,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  June  .5,  1783. 

(See  Dumas  to  States- General,  same  date.) 
(^ee  Netherlands,  Dumas,  Adams.) 
Stilli^,  C.  J.— 

His  views  as  to  Beaumarcliais.     Introduction,  ^^  58,  69. 
His  views  as  to  Broglie.    Ibid.,  ^§  7(3,  ff. 
Stockton,  S.  W.,  secretary  to  W.  Lee.      TV.  Lee  to  Commiltee,  Feb.  25,  1779. 
Stormont — 

His  insults  to  American  envoys  in  Paris.     Introduction,  ^  21. 
Views  of  Broglie.     Ibid.,  ^  77. 
Views  01  Kalb.     Ibid.,  $  81. 
Espionage  of,  over  Franklin.    Ibid.,  '^  119. 
Story — 

A.  Lee  is  to  aid,  and  can  trust  as  agent.     Committee  to  A.  Lee,  Dec.  12,  1775. 

Commended.     Franklin  to  Dumas,  Dec.  19,  1775. 

Letters  taken  from,  by  British;  difficulty  he  sustained  in  transmitting  letters. 

Dumas  to  Franklin,  Apr,  30,  1776. 
Report  of,  for  A.  Lee,  as  to  supplies  and  position  of  France.     Record  of  Committee, 
Oct.  1, 1776. 
Strachey — 

Introduced.     Townshend  to  Franklin,  Oct.  23, 1782. 

To  Commissioners.     Urges  restoration  of  estates  to  loyalists,  Nov.  5,  1782. 

Articles  of  settlement  taken  by  him  to  England,  Nov.  5, 1782. 

To  Peace  Commissioners.     As  to  refugees,  Nov.  5, 1782. 

From  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jay,  Nov.  6, 1782. 

(See  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jay  to  Strachey,  same  date.) 
Explains  his  course  to  British  ministry,  Nov.  8, 1782. 
Strahan.     From  Franklin,  Feb.  16, 1784. 

(See  Franklin  to  Strahan,  same  date.) 
Submission.    Unconditional,  demanded  by  Britain,  of  the  Americans.    A.  Lee  to  Mrs. 

Bache,  Mar.  19, 1776. 
Subsidies,  French.     Defined  by  "contract"  of  Feb.  25,  1783.     Introduction,  $64. 

(See  jp?'awce,  Franklin,  Vergennes.) 
Sugar  Islands.     Advantages  of  their  neutralization.     Franklin  to  Oswald,  Jan.  14, 

1783. 
Sullivan— 

Negotiations  arising  from  imprisonment  of.     Franklin  to  Howe,  Sept.  8,  1776,  and 

subsequent  papers. 
''Croakings"  of,  deprecated.     Adams  to  Dana,  Feb.  8,  1781. 
Superintendent  of  Finance — 

Election  of  Morris  as.     Morris  to  Congress,  Mar.  13,  1781.     (See  Morris.) 
Powers  of.     Action  of  Congress,  Apr.  21,  1781.     (See  Morris.) 
Supplies  (See  Adams,  Beaumarchais,  Deane,  Franklin,  Laurens,  J.,  Vergennes) — 
Military.     Necessity  of.     Franklin  to  Dumas,  Dec.  19,  1775. 

Military.    Importance  of  obtaining,  from  France.     Committee  to  Deane,  Mar.  3, 1776. 
Resolution  of  Congress  as  to  sending  vessels  to  the  West  Indies  to  buy,  May  8, 

1776. 
Attempts  to  obtain,  in  French  West  India  Islands.     Congress,  May  18,  1776. 
Arrangements  as  to.     Beaumarchais  to  A.  Lee,  June  6,  1776;  A.  Lee  to  Beaumar- 
chais, June  14,  1776. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  221 

Supplies — Continued. 

About  to  1)0  sent  to  Capo  Franyois.     BeaumarchaiH  to  A.  Lee,  Juno  fi,  1776. 
Beauniarcliais  will  form  a  company  to  forward,  under  tlio  name  of  Hortalez  & 

Co.     Beaumarcluds  to  A.  Lee,  June  26,  1776. 
Arrangements  for.       Deanc  to  JUanmarchais  July  24,  1776. 

Negotiation  for;  prospect  of  obtaining,  from  Prussia;  character  of,  to   be  ob- 
tained from  France.     Deane  to  Committee,  Aug.  18,  1776. 
Will  be  fnrnislied  the  colonies  ;  arrangements  for  that  purpose.     Heanmarchais  to 

Committee,  Aug.  18,  1776. 
Will  be  promptly  sent.     Deane  to  Morris,  Sept.  17,  1776. 
Successful  negotiation  for,  expected.     Deane  to  Morris,  Sept.  30, 1776. 
To  value  of  £200,000  will  bo  sent  from  Holland  by  France.     Record  of  Committee, 

Oct.  1, 1776. 
Order  issued  by  French  Government  to  suspend  furnishing.     Deane  to  Committee, 

Oct.  1, 1776. 
Great  need  of,  by  both  Army  and  Navy.     Committee  to  Deane,  Oct.  1,  1776. 
Instructions  of  Congress  to  purchase,  Oct.  22, 1776. 
Various  kinds  forwarded.     Deane  to  Morris,  Sept.  30, 1776 ;  Deane  to  Committee, 

Nov.  6,  1776. 
Under  way  but  dehiyed  by  silence  of  Congress  ;  Congress  indebted  to  Beaumar- 

chais  for.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  6,  1776. 
To  be  soou  shipped.     Beaumarchais  to  Congress,  Dec.  1,  3,  1776. 
Sent  with  Coudray.     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
Shipload  of,  sent  from  Havre.     Franklin  to  Committee,  Dec.  8,  1776. 
Those  sent  through  Hortalez  &  Co.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Oct.  6,  1777. 
Sent  through  Gardoqui,    Commissioners  to  Committee,  Oct.  7,  1777. 
Failure  of,  from  Spain.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Nov.  27,  1777. 
Forwarded  iv  return  voyage  of  A  mph  it  rite.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Nov.  30, 

1777. 
Voyage  of  Amphitrite  with,  intercepted  by  blockade.     Committee  to  Commissioners, 

Dec.  2,  1777. 
Protected  by  French  convoy.    Commissioners  to  Committee,  Dec.  18,  1777. 
From  France  to  be  expected.     Franklin  to  Cushing,  Feb,  21,1778;    Commissioners 

to  Committee,  Feb.  28, 1778. 
Furnished  by  Gardoqui.     Gardoqni  to  A.  Lee,  Apr.  1, 1778. 
Remittances  for,  through  Williams.     Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  Apr.  6,  1^78. 
Difficulty  in  returning  tobacco  for.     Lovel  to  Bingham,  Apr.  16,  1778. 
Statement  as  to  forwarding  of.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  May  20,  June  18,  1778. 
Denied  by  Gerard  to  be  gratuitous.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Jan.  5,  1779. 
Report  of  A.  Lee  as  to.     Lee  to  Committee,^  J  an.  5,  1779. 
Congress  disavows  Paine's  statement  as  to  French  gratuities  in  reply  to  Gerard's 

appeal  for,  Jan,  12,  1779.     ('See  Gerard,  Paine.) 
For  France.     Statement  as  to.     Gerard  to  Congress,  July  5,  1779. 
Sweden— 

Claim  for  damages  by.     Franklin  to  Schweighauser,  Sept.  17,  1779. 

Declaration  of  neutrality  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  14,  1780. 

Answer  to  neutrality  declaration  of,  by  France.     Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  22, 1780. 

Treaty  between  Russia,  Denmark  and  Norway,  Holland,  and.     Adams  to  Congress, 

Feb.  1,  1781. 
Memorial  of  Holland  to  King  of,  asking  aid.     Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  ^9,  1781. 
Position  of,  as  to  neutrality.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  16,  1782. 
Exchange  of  jiowers  with.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  Dec.  25,  1782. 
Treaty  with.    Franklin  to  Livingston,  June  12,  1783 ;  De  Staill  to  Franklin,  June 

13,  1783;  Franklin  to  Livingston,  July  22,  178:5. 
Signature  of  treaty  with.    Franklin  to  TJvingston,  Mar.  7,  1783, 


222  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Sweden — Continued. 

Amendments  to  treaty  with.     Boudinot  to  Franklin,  Aug.  1.5,  1783. 
Treaty  with,  ratified  by  Congress.     Boudinot  to  Franklin,  Aug.  15,  Sept.  9,  1783, 
Talbot,  Colonel.     Relief  of.     Jay  to  Franklin,  July  9,  1781 ;  Franklin  to  Jay,  Aug. 

30,  1781. 
Tankerville,  Lord.     Claim  of.     Franklin  to  Vaughan,  June  13,  1780. 
Taxatio;^,  mode  of.     Recommendations  as  to.     Morris  to  Congress,  July  29,  30,  1782. 

(See  Morris.) 
Taxes— 

Lightness  of,  in  America  compared  with  Europe.    Adams  to  Congress,  Mar.  29, 178L 
All  property  subject  to,  and  should  be  faithfully  paid.     Franklin  to  Morris,  Dec. 
25,  1783. 
Temple.    His  return  to  Massachusetts;  his  political  position.    Adams  to  Congress,  Aug. 

16,  1781. 
Thaxter— 

Appointed  secretary  by  Adams.     Adams  to  Congress,  Nov.  7,  1779. 
Recommended  to  consideration  of  Congress.     Commissioners  to  Congress,  Sept.  10, 
1~83 ;  Jay  to  Thomson,  Sept.  12,  1783. 
"Theatrical  entertainments."    Resolution  of  Congress  against.     Introduction, 

^  156. 
Therese,  the.     Doubts  as  to  ownership  of.     Commissioners  to  Beaiimarchais,  Sept. 

10,  1778. 
Thierot.     Appointed  commissary- general  in  the  United  States  for  Saxony.     Carmi- 

chael  to  Livingston,  Aug.  20,  1783. 
Thompson,  Benj.  (Count  Rumford).     See  note  to  Introduction,  $  27. 
Thompson,  Captain — 

From  Commissioners.     Instructions  to,  Nov.  25,  1777. 

(See  Commissioners  to  Thompson,  same  date.)  , 

Thomson,  C. 

From  Franklin,  Feb.  5,  1775. 

(See  Franklin  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  TV.  Lee,  Jan.  2,  1777. 

(See  TF.  Lee  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Nov.  24,  1777. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  TV.  Lee,  Dec.  18,  1777. 

(See  W.  Lee  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Apr.  23,  1781. 

(See  Jay  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Reception  of  French  minister.  May  9,  1782. 
To  Livingston.     Regretting  latter's  resignation,  June  4, 1783. 
From  Livingston,  June  5,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  July  19,  1783. 

(See  rTay  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Sept.  12,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Nov.  14,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  9,  1784. 

(See  Franklin  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
From  Laurens,  Mar.  28,  1784. 

(See  Laurens  to  Thompson,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  May  18,  1784. 

(See  Franklin  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  223 

Thomsox,  C— Contiimcd. 

From  Franklin,  Oct.  IG,  1784. 

(See  FranJdin  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 

From  Frankihi,  Nov.  11,  1784. 
(See  Franklin  to  Thomson,  same  date.) 
Thornton,  ''Major"— 

A  British  spy,  acting  as  secretary  to  A.  Lee.     Introduction,  $$  150,  207. 

Sparks'  views  of.    Note  to  A.  Lee's  letter  o/ Apr.  2,  1778. 

Originally  employed  to  take  messages  to  Lord  North  ;  employed  by  A.  Lee  as  sec- 
retary, and  afterwards  sent  as  such  to  England,  from  whence  he  communi- 
cated information  to  Lee  ;  defended  from  the  charge  of  stock-jobbing.  A. 
Lee  to  Committee,  Aug.  7,  1778. 

Dismissal  of,  annouuced.     A.  L^ee  to  Committee,  Sept.  9,  1778. 

Payments  to,  by  A.  Lee.     Lee  to  Committee,  Jan.  5,  1779. 

Charges  Bancroft,  on  Lord  North's  authority,  with  being  a  stock-jobber,  Apr.  26, 

1779.     (See  Index,  ^awcro/^     Introduction,  ^$  150, 196,207.) 
Tilly,  French  commander.     Arrival  of,  with  two  frigates,  and  subsequent  action. 

Luzerne  to  Congress,  Feb.  25,  Mar.  2,  1781. 
Tobacco— 

Can  not  be  promptly  shipped  to  meet  demands  of  ^'  Hortalez."  Lee  to  Beaumar- 
chais,  May  23,  1776. 

Virginia,  asked  in  exchange  for  supplies.     Beaiimarchais  to  A.  Lee,  June  6,  1776. 

Will  be  depended  upon  for  payment  for  supplies.  Beaumarchais  to  A.  Lee,  June 
26,  1776. 

Engaged  by  Congress.     Deane  to  Beaumarchais,  July  20,  1776. 

Twelve  thousand  hogsheads  wanted.     Beaiimarchais  to  Committee,  Aug.  18,  1776. 

High  price  of.     Deane  to  Morris,  Seitt.  .30,  1776. 

Should  be  forwarded  to  France.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  7,  1776. 

High  price  of,  important  medium  of  exchange.  Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  8,  17, 
1776. 

And  provisions  high.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  25, 1776. 

Shipment  of,  urged;  prices  of.  Deane  to  Committee,  Oat.  8,  1776;  Carmichael  to 
Committee,  Nov.  2, 1776. 

High  price  of,  obtaining  in  Europe.  Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  25,  Nov.  28,  29,  Dec. 
3, 30, 1776.    (See  Supplies.) 

Exportation  of,  called  for  to  pay  American  debts.  Commissioners  to  Committee, 
Jan.  17, 1777. 

Power  of,  as  a  medium  of  exchange.     A.  Zee  to  Conimittoe,  Feb.  17, 1777. 

Contract  made  to  supply,  in  France.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12.  1777, 

Demand  of  commissioners  for,  can  not  readily  be  met.  Committee  to  Commission^ 
ers,  May  15, 1778. 

Agreement  for  sale  of,  Mar.  24,  1777, 

Engagement  to  supply  Farmers-General  with.  Commissioners  to  Committee,  Sept. 
8,  1777. 

Preference  given  to  product  of  the  United  States.     Calonne  to  La  Fayette,  Jan. 
5,  1784. 
Tories — 

Deterred  from  enlisting  in  British  army  by  example  of  British  cruelty.  Intro- 
duction, $  22. 

Their  heartless  abandonment  by  British  authorities  in  America.     Ibid.,  $  24. 

As  to  their  influence  abroad.     (See  uefugees.)     Introduction,  $  24. 

Diplomacy  of.  .  Ihid.,  ^  28. 

Expectations  in  England  of  great  assistance  from.     A.  Lee  to  Colilen,  Feb.  14,  1776. 

Giving  domestic  trouble.     Committee  to  Deane,  Oct.  1,  1776.     (See  Loyalists.) 

Instructions  of  Congress  against  restoration  of,  Oct.  18,  1780. 


224  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Tories — Continued. 

Their  abandonment  by  retreating  British  armies.     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Dec.  10, 

1781 ;  Livinoston  to  Adams,  Dec.  26,  17ft2.     (See  Loyalists.) 
Restoration  of  property  to.     Oswald  to  Commissioners,  Nov.  4,  1782;  Strachey  to 

Commissioners,  Nov.  5, 1782.     (See  Loyalists.) 
Their  re-instatement  can  not  be  made  matter  of  treaty.     Commissioners  to  Oswald, 

Nov.  5,  1782. 
Opposition  of  commissioners  to  re-instatement  of.    Adams  to  Livingston,  Nov.  11, 
1782;  Adams' journal  of  peace  negotiations,  Nov.  11,  20,  1782;  Franklin  to  Os- 
wald, Nov.  26,  1782,  et  seq.     (See  Loyalists.) 
Importance  of  conscientious  performance  of  the  treaty  eugagements  for  their  re- 
lief.    Commissioners  to  Congress,  Sept.  10,  1783;  Jay  to  Livingston,  Sept.  J3, 
1783;  Jay  to  Hamilton,  Sept.  28,  1783. 
ToKitis.     From  Franklin,  May  30,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Torris,  same  date.) 
Tournament,  British.     At  Philadelphia,  in  1778,  injurious  to  British  cause.     Intro- 
duction, §  23. 
TousSARD.     Pension  of.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  June  11,  1781. 

TOVVNSHEND— 

To  Oswald,     ilipproving  latter's  course,  Sept.  1,  1782. 

To  Franklin.     Irtroduciug  Strachey;  expresses  earnest  desire  for  peace,  Oct.  22, 

1782. 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  4,  1782. 

{See  Franklin  to  Townshend,  saaie  date.) 
From  Oswald,  Nov.  30,  1782. 

(See  Oswald  to  Townshend,  same  date.) 
Trade — 

With  Britain.     Conciliatory  propositions  as  to.     Hartley  to  Franklin,  Mar.  12, 

17e3. 
British  restrictions  on.     Laurens  to  Thomson,  Mar.  28,  1784;  Laurens  to  Congress, 

Apr.  24,  17fc0. 
Cut  off  by  British  embargo.     Livingston  to  Dana,  Dec.  17,  1782. 
Traitors.     Small  number  of,  among  revolutionists.     lutrodiiction,  ^J  8. 
Treasury  Board.     From  Adams,  Sept.  19,  1779. 
{See  Adams  to  Treasury  Board,  same  date.) 
Treaties — 

International  law  relative  to.     Introduction,  ^^  53,  8{>,  100  jf. 

For  supplying  Britain  with  Hessian  troops.     A.  Lee  to  Mrs.  Bachc,  Mar.  19,  1776. 

Proceedings  of  Congress  as  to  plans  of,  July  20,  1776. 

Presents  on  making,  the  United  States  do  not  give.     Livingston  to  Dana,  May  1, 

1783. 
Of  commerce  with  foreign  powers.     Instructions  of  Congress  as  to.  May  7,  1784. 
Method   of  ratifying.     Hartley  to   Franklin,   June  1,   1784;    Franklin  io  Hartley, 
June  2,  1784. 
Treaty— 

0/1763  beticeen  Britain  and  France  unsatisfactory  to  both  parties.     Introduction, 

§^33,34. 
Effect  of,  on  the  United  States.     Ibid.,  ^  35. 
Of  1778  between  France  and  United  Stales.     Importance  of.     Deane  to  Committee, 

Dec.  1,  1776. 
Draught  of.     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 
Objections  of  Izard  and  A.  Lee  to  twelfth  article.     Introduction,  ^  46;  Izard  to 

Franklin,  Jan.  28,  30,  1778;   A.  Lee  to  Franklin,  Jan.  30,  1778. 
Concession  of  Franklin  and  Deane.     Franklin  to  Gerard,  Feb.  1, 1778;  Franklin  to 
Lee,  Feb.  1,  1778. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  225 

Treaty — C  o  ntin  ued . 

Too  far  settled  to  be  altered.     Gerard  to  Commissioners,  Feb.  2,  1778. 

Explanation  of,  to  Congress.     Commissioners  to  Congress,  Feb.  5,  16,  1778. 

Criticism  of,  by  A.  Lee.     A.  Lee  to  Izard,  May  2-1,  1778. 

Solemnization  of,  by  France;  advantajijes  of.     Franklin  to  Cusking,  Feb.  21,  1778. 

Can  not  be  rationally  objected  to.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Feb.  26,  1778. 

Advantages  of.     A.  Lee  to  Commiltce,  Feb.  28,  1778. 

Admits  of  useful  additions  ;  hesitation  of  Spain,  A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Mar.  19, 
1778. 

Jay's  views  of.     Jay  to  Morris,  Apr.  29,  1778. 

R.  Morris'  views  of,  May  2,  1778. 

Action  of  Congress  on;  ratification  of,  May  4,  1778. 

Committee  of  foreign  affairs  as  to.  Committee  to  JV.  Lee,  Bingham,  Dumas,  and 
A.  Lee,  May  14,  1778. 

Criticised  by  Izard,  May  18,  1778. 

As  to  tw*elfth  article  of  treaty  of  commerce.  Izard  to  A.  Lee,  Jan.  28,  1778  ;  A.  Lee 
to  Vergennes,  Jane  14,  1778;  Vergennes  to  Lee,  June  15,  1778.  (See  Introduc- 
tion, ^  46.) 

Communication  of  action  of  Congress  on  to  France  and  exchange  of  ratifications. 
Commissioners  to  Committee,  July  17,  20,  1778. 

No  objection  by  France  to  withdrawing  eleventh  and  twelfth  articles.  Commis- 
sioners to  Committee,  July  29,  1778.     (See  Introduction,  $  46.) 

Abrogation  of  eleventh  and  twelfth  articles;  Vergennes'  and  commissioners'  dec- 
laration of,  Sept.  1,  1778.     (See  Introduction,  ^  46.) 

Change  in  eleventh  and  twelfth  articles  explained.   Deane  to  Congress,  Oct.  12, 1778. 

Not  to  be  published  until  ratifications  have  been  exchanged,  though  the  matter 
left  to  the  discretion  of  Congress.     Gerard  to  Congress,  Nov.  20,  1778. 

Construction  of  commercial  clauses.     Commissioners  to  Lloyd,  Jan.  26,  1779. 

Declaration  annulling  eleventh  and  twelfth  articles  communicated.  Luzerne  to 
Congress,  Sept.  15, 1780. 

Disclosure  of,  to  Great  Britain.     Introduction,  §§  177,  196. 

Charges  of  surreptitious  disclosure  of.     Introduction,  $$  49,  144,  150,  193. 

Complications  arising  under.     Introduction,  §§>  109  J". 

Proposed  new  articles  to.     Vergennes  to  Franklin,  May  20,  1783. 

Of  neutrality  between  Bussia,  Denmark  and  Norway,  Sweden,  and  Holland,  etc. 
Adams  to  Congress,  Feb.  1,  1781. 

With  Holland.  Powers  for.  Adams  to  Fauguyon,  Apr.  16,  1781.  (See  Adama  to 
States  General,  Apr.  14,1781.) 

Between  Britain  and  United  States  of  peace  of  1782.  Negotiation  and  conclusion  of. 
(See  Adams,  Livingston,  F\ankUn,  Jay,  Oswald,  Vergennes,  Preliminaries.) 

Grounds  of  final  British  assent.     Oswald  to  Townshend,  Nov.  30,  1782. 

Ofdcial  notification  of,  with  explanatory  remarks.  Adams,  Franklin,  Jay,  and 
Laurens  to  Livingston,  Dec.  14,  1782.  (See,  as  to  Vergennes'  view,  Vergennes 
to  Luzerne,  Dec.  19,  1783;  Madison's  Debates,  De».  24,  30,  1782,  Jan.   1,  1783.) 

Propriety  of  the  negotiations  apart  from  France.  (See  Introduction,  ^^  45,  110, 
111.) 

Spain's  displeasure  at.  Carmichael  to  Livingston,  Dec.  30,  1782.  (See  Introduc- 
tion, ^  86. ) 

Supplemental,  between  France  and  England,  in  1783,  suggested  by  Hartley,  Mar. 
31,  1783. 

Of  peace  of  1782.     New  articles  proposed  by  Hartley,  May  21,  1783. 

Violation  of,  by  carrying  ofl:'  slaves.     Livingston  to  Commissioners,  May  29,  1783. 

Propositions  submitted  in  reference  to.     (See  Hartley. ) 

15  WH 


226  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Treaty — Continued. 

Separate  signatures  explained.     Adams  to  Livingston,  July  9,  1783 ;  Franklin  to 

Livingston,  July  22,  1783. 
Ratified  by  George  III,  Aug.  6, 1783. 
Definitive.     Britain  proposes  that  it  should  he  a  mere  renewal  of  preliminaries; 

British  envoys  object  to  the  imperial  courts  appearing  in  the  signatures. 

Adams  to  Livingston,  Aug.  13,  1783. 
Preliminary  articles  of,  accepted  as  definitive.   Franklin  to  Vergennes,  Aug.  16, 1783  ; 

Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  31,  1783;  Adams  to  Congress,  Sept.  1,  1783. 
How  far  in  negotiating  it  engagements  to  France  were  set  aside.     Introduction, 

^^  4, 109,  J. 
Commercial,  with  Britain.    Authority  to  negotiate  given.     Adams,  Franklin,  and 

Jay  to  Hartley,  Sept.  7,  1783. 
Commercial,  with  foreign  iwwers.      Ministers  at   Paris  authorized  to  negotiate, 

Oct.  29,  1783. 
Truce— 

Suggestion  of,  by  Hartley.     Hartley  to  Franklin,  Apr.  23,  1779.     Introduction, 

^  86,  98. 
The  United  States  can  not  consent  to,  without  substantial  acknowledgment  of 

independence.     Franklin  to  Hartley,  Jan.  15,  1782. 
Commissioners  might  agree  to,  if  long,  so  as  to  be  tantamount  to  independence. 

Huntington  to  Commissioners,  June  15,  1781. 
Trumbull — 

From  Deane,  Oct.  21,  1781. 

(See  Deane  to  Trumbull,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Jan.  22,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Trumbull,  same  date.) 
His  reply  to  Deane  unanimously  approved  by  legislature  in  Connecticut.     Liv- 
ingston to  Luzerne,  June  7,  1782;  Livingston  to  Trumbull,  June  12,  1782. 
From  Livingston,  June  12,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Trumbull,  same  date.) 
Tucker,  G.,  Professor — 

His  views  as  to  cabal  against  Washington.     Introduction,  $  11. 
View  of  A.  Lee.     Ibid.,  ^  145. 
TuRGOT.     His  views  as  to  assisting  America.     Ibid.,  $  42. 
Tuscany — 

Policy  of,  towards  America.     Ibid.,  §  97a. 

Affairs  of.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  26,  1776. 

Duke  of,  said  to  favor  America.     Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776. 

Preparations  to  send  a  commissioner  to.     Committee  to  Commissioners  at  Paris, 

Dec.  30,  1776. 
Failure  of  mission  to,    and  non-reception  of  Izard  as  minister.     Introduction, 

§  178 ;  and  see  ^  97a. 
United  Provinces.     {See  Netherlands,  Adams,  Dumas,  Franklin,  Holland.) 
United  States  of  America — 

Evolution  of  constitution  of.     Introduction,  §^  Iff.,  209. 

Revolutionary  schools  of.     Ibid.,  ^§  20  f. 

Leading  revolutionary  statesmen.     Ibid.,  ^^  4,  113  J^.,  209. 

Attitude  of,  to  foreign  nations  during  the  Revolution.     Ibid.,  $$  ^Off, 

Relations  of,  to  Britain.     Ibid.,  ^  21  ff. 

Relations  of,  to  France.     Ibid.,  ^  33 j^. 

Relations  of,  to  Spain.     Ibid.,  '^  87^. 

Relations  of,  to  Prussia.     Ibid.,  ^  90,^. 

Relations  of,  to  Russia.     Ibid.,  §  92  ff. 

Kelationa  of,  to  German  Empire.    Ibid.,  $  96. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  227 

United  States  of  America — Continued. 
Relations  of,  to  Netherlands.     Ibid.,  $  97. 
Relations  of,  to  Tuscany.     Ibid.,  $  97a. 
Proposals  to,  for  mediation.     Ibid.,  '^^  86,  98,99. 
Questions  of  international  law  relating  to.     Ibid.,  ^  100 j^. 
Difficultiesof  diplomacy  of.     Ibid.,  ^  103./^".     {^ee  Diplomacy.) 
Embarrassing  relations  with  France.     Ibid.,  ^^sS  109  jf. 
English  peace  intermediaries  dealing  with.     Ibid.,  $  197. 
Necessity  of  French  aid  to,  in  spring  of  1777.     Comniissioners  to  Vergennes,  Feb.  1, 

1777. 
Ought  not  to  force  ministers  on  Europe.     Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  Mar.  21,  1777. 
Advantages  of  loans  to,  as  investment.     Franklin  (paper  by),  Aug.  — ,  1777. 
Critical  position  of,  in  1781.     Franklin  to  Vercjennes,  Feb.  13,  1781. 
Prosperity  and  happiness  of,  under  new  system.     Livingston  to  Dana,  Dec.  17, 1782. 
Announcement  of  acknowledgment  by  Great  Britain  of  independence  of.     Adams 
to  Jay,  June  22,  1784;  Jay  to  Congress,  Mar.  4,  1785. 
Unknown  Party — 

Letter  to.     Supposed  to  be  from  A.  Lee,  Feb.  13,  1776. 
Writing  to  Franklin.     (See  Weissenstein.) 
Vaillant.     Claim  of.     Franklin  to  Dumas,  Dec.  19,  1775. 
Valley  Fokge.     Sufferings  at,  contrasted  with  British  dissipation  at  Philadelphia. 

Introduction,  $  23. 
Valnais.     Appointed  French  consul  to  Boston.     Congress,  Jan.  21,  1779. 
Van  Berckel— 

From  Dumas,  July  27,  1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  Vari  Berckel,  same  date.) 
To  Dumas.     Position  of  Holland,  July  31,  1778. 
From  Dumas,  Aug.  17, 1778. 

(See  Dumas  to  Van  Berckel,  same  date.) 
To  Dumas.     As  to  power  of  Amsterdam  in  respect  to  treaties,  Sept.  23,  1778. 
Authorizes  draught  of  treaty  between  The  Netherlands  and  the  United  States.     7F 

Lee  to  Committee,  Oct.  15,  1778. 
Criticisms  of.     Commissioners  to  Dumas,  Oct.  16,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Oct.  29,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Van  Berckel,  same  date.) 
Position  of,  in  Holland  in  1780.     Dumas  to  Congress,  Dec.  19, 1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Congress,  Aug.  22,  1781.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  8,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Van  Berckel,  same  date.) 
Difiaculties  incurred  by  in  Holland  pwing  to  disclosure    of    Laurens'  papers. 

Adams  to  Livingston,  Feb.  21,  1782. 
Reliance  of,  on  American  commissioners.     Dumas  to  Adams,  Feb.  4,  1783. 
Nominated  as  Dutch  minister  to  the  United  States.     Dumas  to  Livingston,  Mar.  4, 

5,  1783. 
Great  merits  of.     Dumas  to  Livingston,  Mar.  5,  1783. 

Welcome  to-,  on  arrival  in  the  United  States.   Boudinot  to  Van  Berckel,  Oct.  24,  1783. 
Van  Bleiswick.     From  Adams,  Mar.  31, 1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Van  Bleiswick,  same  date.) 
Van  der  Capellan — 

From  Adams,  Oct.  22,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Van  der  Capellan,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  20,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Van  der  Capellan,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  9,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Van  der  Capellan,  same  date.) 


228  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Vandreuil.     From  Luzerne,  Dec.  18,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Vandreuil,  same  date.) 
Vauban.     See  Introduction,  §  78. 
Vaughan,  B. — 

Political  position  of.     Introduction,  $$  158,  198. 
From  Franklin,  June  15,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vaughan,  same  date.) 
His  marriage  and  liis  agency  in  relief  of  Laurens.     Franklin  to  Vaughan,  Nov.  22, 

1781. 
From  Franklin,  July  10,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vaughan,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  11,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vaughan,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  political  i)rospects,  Jan.  18,  1783. 
From  Adams,  Mar.  12, 1783. 

(See  Adams  to  Vaughan,  same  date.) 
From  Jaij,  Mar.  28,  1783. 

(See  Jay  to  Vaughan,  same  date.) 
Vaughan,  J.  (brother  of  B.  Vaughan) — 

Jay  declines  to  administer  oath  of  allegiance  to.     Jay  to  Franklin,  May  'M,  1781. 

(See,  however,  Franklin  to  Jay,  Aug.  30,  1781,  and  Introduction,  $  198.) 
Introduced  to  Bache.     Franklin  to  Bache,  Jan.  19,  1782. 
Vauguyon — 

Memorial  of,  to  States-General,  Dec.  7,  1778. 
From  J.  Paul  Jones,  Nov.  4,  1779. 

(See  J.  P.  Jones  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Nov.  9,  1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.)  , 

From  Dumas,  Nov.  11,  1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
From  Dumas,  Nov.  13,  1779. 

(See  Dumas  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
From  J.  P.  Jones,  Dec.  13,  1779. 

(See  t7.  P.  Jowes  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
Advises  the  demand  for  an  answer  to  the  proposition  of  alliance,    xidanis  to  Frank- 
lin, Feb.  20,  1781. 
From  Adams.    Asked  as  to  advisability  of  proposing  alliance  between  Holland  and 
America,  Mar.  1,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  8,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Acknowledges  receipt  of  the  resolutions  of  Congress  acceding  to  the 
principles  of  neutrality  declared  by  Russia,  but  can  not  second  them  without 
instruction,  Mar.  14,  1781. 
From  Adams,  Apr.  16, 1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  1,  1781, 

(See  Adams  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  24, 1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Nov.  25,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Dec.  19, 1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
To  Adam8.    As  to  interview,  Dec.  20,  1781. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  229 

Vauguyon — Continued. 

To  Adam-9.     As  to  latter's  official  visits,  Dec.  30,  1781. 

To  Adams.     Objections  to  Adams'  course  at  The  Hague,  Mar.  4,  1782. 

From  Adams,  Apr.  10,  1782. 

(See  Adams  to  Vauguyon,  same  date.) 
Verac  (French  luiuistor  in  Russia) — 

His  correspondence  with  Dana.     (See  Dana.) 

To  Dana.    Acknowledging  courtesy,  etc.,  Aug.  30,1781. 

From  Dana,  Aug.  30,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Ferae,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Sept.  1,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Verac,  same  date.) 
To  Dana.     As  to  Russian  policy  and  the  improbability  of  his  early  reception, 

Sept.  2,  1781. 
From  Dana,  Sept.  4,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Verac,  same  date.) 
To  Dana.     As  to  Russian  mediation,  Sept.  12,  1781. 
From  Dana,  Sept.  13,  1781. 
(See  Dana  to  Verac,  same  date.) 
Vergennes — 

His  policy  in  the  cabinet  of  Louis  XVI;  personal  characteristics  and  conduct. 

Introduction,  ^^  37 j^. 
His  conduct  towards  America.     Ibid.,  §$  50  Jf. 
Difficulties  with  Spain.     Ihid.,  ^  53,  86. 

Efforts  to  stretch  the  rights  of  neutrals  in  favor  of  America.     Ibid.,  $  100. 
Unwilling  to  confide  in  A.  Lee.     Ibid.,  $  152. 
Strained  relations  of,  with  Adams.     Ibid.,^  13.     (/w/Va,  under  dates  of  June  30  and 

July  25,  1780.) 
His  parting  tribute  to  Franklin.     Ibid.,  $  128. 
Deane  is  instructed  to  find  out  from  him  if  France  will  give  the  colonists  arms. 

Committee  to  Deane,  Mar.  3, 1776. 
To  Beaumarchais,  Apr.  26,  1776. 

Requests  authority  from  Louis  XVI  to  send  the  English  Colonies  money.     Ver- 
gennes to  Louis  XVI,  May  2,  1776. 
Interview  with,  by  Deane,  upon  condition  of  affairs  in  Europe  and  America  and 

obtaining  supplies.     Deane  to  Committee,  Aug.  18, 1776. 
From  Deane,  Aug.  22,  1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
Says  France  will  not  go  to  war  with  England,  but  will  supply  arms  to  colonists. 

Record  of  Committee,  Oct.  1, 1776. 
From  Deane,  Dec.  8, 1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Vergennes,  same  date. ) 
From  FranJclin,  Dec.  23, 1776. 

(S      Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
First  audience  of  commissioners  with,  Jan.  4,  1777. 
From  Commissioners,  Jan.  5,  1777. 

(See  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  NoaiUes.     Reference  of  letter  in  dispatch  of  commissioners  to  committee  of 

Jan.  5,  1771. 
From  Commissioners,  Feb.  1,  1777. 

(See  Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     His  protest  against  American  breaches  of  neutrality,  July  16, 

1777. 
From  Franklin  and  Deane.     In  explanation,  July  17,  1777. 
(See  Franklin  and  Deane  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 


230  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Vergennes — Continued. 

From  Commissioners,  Aug.  12,  1777. 

(See  Fra7iklin,  Deane,  and  Lee  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Grand.     Vindicates  position  of  France  as  to  privateers,  Aug.  21 ,  1777. 
Advises  acknowledgment  of  independence.    Commissioners  to  Committee,  Dec.  18, 

1777. 
From  Commissioners.    Asking  for  action  as  to  treaty,  loan,  etc.,  Dec.  23,  1777. 

(See  Commissioners  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
Invites  commissioners  to  dinner  when  presented  at  court.     Gerard  to  Commis- 
sioners, Mar.  17, 1778. 
Testimonial  to  Deane.     Vergennes  to  Congress,  Mar.  25,  1778;  Vergennes  to  Deane 

Mar.  26,  1778. 
To  Gerard.    Giving  his  views  as  to  tLe  attitude  of  France  as  to  American  con- 
tested claims,  Mar.  27,  1778. 
To  Gerard.     General  instructions  as  to  policy.  Mar.  29,  1778. 
From  FranMin.    Explaining  Hartley's  missions,  Apr.  24,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  FranMin.     Replying  that  Franklin's  course  was  satisfactory,  Apr.  25,  1778. 
(As  to  A.  Lee's  action  in  this  matter,  see  A.  Lee  to  Vergennes,  Apr.  24,  1778, 
cautioning  him  against  Hartley  and  Franklin,  and  Vergennes'  curt  reply  of 
same  date.) 
From  Sartine,  Apr.  26,  1778. 

(See  Sartine  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     Complains  of  conduct  of  American  privateers,  May  15,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  May  16,  1778. 

(See  Franklin,  Lee,  and  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  May  19,  1778. 

(See  Franklin,  Lee,  and  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  June  15,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  6, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  July  17,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Aug.  28, 1778. 

(^ee  Franklin  et  al.  to  Commissioners,  same  date.) 
Declaration  of,  as  to  annulling  eleventh  and  twelfth  articles  of  treaty,  Sept.  1, 1778. 
Fronx  Izard,  Sept.  2,  1778. 

(See  Izard  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Sept.  10,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Necker,  Sept.  18,  1778. 

(See  Necker  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.    As  to  duties  on  Americans,  Sept.  24,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Sept.  26,  1778.  ' 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Commissioners.     As  to  Barbary  Powers,  Sept.  27,  1778. 
From  A.  Lee,  Sept.  28,  1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Commissionfrs,  Oct.  1, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee,  Oct.  12,1778. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     Approving  of  his  suspending  movements  towards  Madrid,  Oct.  17, 
1778. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  231 

V  EKGENNES —Continued. 

To  A.  Lee.     Acknowledging  information,  Oct.  24,  1778. 
From  CommiHsioners,  Oct.  29,  1778. 

(See  Franlclin  el  al.  to  Vvrgennes,  same  date.) 
To  Comviissioners.     As  to  Barbary  Powers,  Oct.  30,  1778. 
To  Commissioners.     As  to  intorcliango  of  papers,  Oct.  M,  1778. 
From  Commissioners,  Nov.  12, 1778. 

(See  Franklin  and  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners.     Appealed  to,  for  a  French  ileet,  Jan.  1,  1779. 
From  A.  Lee,  Jan.  3,  1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee.     As  to  interview  with  Berkenhout,  Jan.  4,  1779. 
To  A.  Lee.     In  reply,  Jan.  4,  1779. 
From  A.  Lee,  Jan.  8,  1779. 

(See  A.  Lee  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     As  to  Berkenhout,  Jan.  10,  1779. 
From  Franklin,  Lee,  and  Adams,  Jan.  24,  1779. 
(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Commissioners,  Feb.  9,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  et  al.  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  11,  1779. 

(8ee  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.    Declining  to  take  notice  of  dissensions  of  American  commissioners, 

Feb.  13, 1779. 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  14,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  A.  Lee.     As  to  Deane,  Feb.  1.5,  1779. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  16,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.  ) 
Gives  kindly  letter  of  farewell  to  Adams,  Feb.  21,1779. 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  25,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  27,  1779. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  9,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  17,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to   Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  28,1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.)" 
Distrust  of  A.  Lee  by,  expressed  in  statements  of  Pacaand  Dravton  to  Congress  of 

Apr.  30,  1779. 
From  Franklin,  May  3,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  26,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  8, 1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Ja}/,  Jan.  27,  1780. 

(See  Jay  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
Prom  Adams,  Feb.  12,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Advising  the  non-disclosure  of  his  peace  credentials,  Feb.  15,  1780. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  19,  1780. 
(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 


232  PRELIMINARY    INDEX 

Vergennes — Contiuued. 

To  Adams.     Confides  in  the  fidelity  of  the  United  States  to  treaties,  Feb.  24, 

1780. 
From  Adams,  Feb.  25,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Mar.  21,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     As  to  the  publication  of  the  latter's  credentials,  Mar.  30,  1780. 
From  Adams,  Apr.  25,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.,"^ 
From  Adams,  May  9,  1780. 

(See^^Zams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Asking  for  further  information,  May  10,  1780. 
To  Franklin.     Introducing  Arendt,  May  11,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  May  16, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  May  19,  1780. 

fSee  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Acknowledging  letters,  etc..  May  24,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  June  18,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  June  20,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Danger  to  the  United  States  of  depreciation  of  paper  money,  June 

21,  1780. 
From  Adams  (two  letters),  June  22,  1780. 

(See  ^dams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Complains  of  inadequacy  of  Adams'  explanation  of  his  course  and 
asks  Franklin  to  present  the  matter  to  Congress,  June  30,  1780. 

{8ee  Adams  to  Vergennes,  June  22,  1780;  Franklin  to  Congress,  June  26,  1780; 
Vergennes  to  Adams,  June  30,  1780.) 
From  Adams,  July  1,  1780. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  10,  1780. 

(See  Frankliii  toVergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  J  uly  13,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  17,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     States  the  efforts  made  by  France  in  the  common   cause,   and   the 
efiect  these  efi"orts  should  have  in  allaying  American  discontent,  July  20, 1780. 
From  Adams,  July  21,  1780. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Adams,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Protests  against  Adams  announcing  his  peace  couiiiiission  to  Britain, 

July  25,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  July  25,  1780. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Franklin,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  26,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  27,  1780. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     After  the  animadversion  on  his  prior  letter,  declines  to  have  further 
conference  with  Adams,  Franklin  being  the  sole  American  minister  accred- 
ited to  Paris,  July  29,  1780. 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  233 

Vergennes — Continued. 

To  Franklin.     Advising  him  of  the  termination  of  his  correspondence  with  Adams, 

July  31,  1780, 
I'roni  Franklin,  Ang.  15,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Sept.  7,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Fergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Jay,  Sept.  22,  1780. 

(See  Jaif  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  19,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.    Telling  him  to  warn  Congress  against  listening  to  the  representa- 
tions of  a  man  "  whose  character  they  ought  to  know ;  "  commends  Franklin's 
priidenc*^  and  wisdom  in  the  highest  terms,  and  attributes  to  him  the  success 
America  has  had  in  France,  Dec.  4,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  13,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     Impossible  for  France  to  meet  the  demands  of  Congress;  bad  influ- 
ence of  Izard  and  Lee ;  confidence  of  court  in  Franklin,  Feb.  14,  1781. 
His  position  as  to  Franco-American  alliance.     Adams  to  Franklin,  Feb.  20,  1781 ; 

Adams  to  Congress,  same  date. 
From  Franklin,  M.iiT.  6,1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
His  views  as  to  Adams  withholding  the  announcement  of  his  peace  commission 
approved  by  Congress.     Huntington  to  Adams,  Jan.  10, 1781 ;  Lovell  to  Frank- 
lin, Mar.  9,  1781. 
From  Laurens,  Mar.  20  (?),  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Dana,  Mar.  31,  1781. 

(See  Drtwa  to  Fcr^enwes,  same  date.) 
To  Dana.     As  to  interview,  Apr.  1,  1781. 
From  Dana,  Apr.  2,  1781. 

(See  Dana  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
Advises  Dana  not  to  attempt  to  force  himself  upon  the  Russian  court,  Apr.  4, 1781. 
(Franklin  concurs  in  this  view.    Franklin  to  Dana,  Apr.  7,  ]'~81;  but  Adams 
dissents.     Adams  to  Dana,  Apr.  16,  1781.) 
From  Laurens,  Apr.  18,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Laurens.     Regrets  inability  to  supply  him  with  additional  fands.  May  16, 1781. 
From  Franklin,  .June  4,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Difficulties  arising  from  Laurens'  action  in  Holland;  declines  to 

pay  for  his  purchases  on  credit,  June  8,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  June  10,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  11,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  June  27,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  6,  17S1. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  7,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  game  date.) 
From  Adams,  July  13,  1781. 
(See  Adams  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 


234  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Vkrgenxes — Conti  nued . 

From  Adams,  July  16,  1781. 

(See  Adams  to  Verf/ennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.    Advising  him  not  to  act  on  mediation  proposition,  July  18,  1781 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  20,  1781. 

(See  Franldin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Adams.     Acknowledging  note,  Dec.  7,  1781. 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  27,  1781. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  18,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  1,  1782. 

(See  Franklin,  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  2,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  5/owe,  Feb.  6,  1782. 

(See  Blome  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  15,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  alleged  American  spoliations  of  Danish  vessels,  Feb.  24, 1782. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  3,  17^2. 

(See  Fra7ikUn  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Marlms,  Mar.  13,  1782. 

(See  Marbois  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  ia  Fayette,  Mar.  20,  1782. 

(See  ia  Fayette  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Montmorin,  Mar.  30,  1782. 

(See  Montmorin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  May  4,  1782. 

(See  Fanklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date,  in  Franklin^ s  jonrnal,  July  1,  1782  ) 
To  Franklin.     On  peace,  May  .^),  1782.     (Given  in  Franklin^s  journal,  under  date  of 

July  1,  1782). 
Part  in  peace  negotiations.     (See  Franklin\s  journal,  from  Mar.  21  to  July  1,  1782; 

under  date  of  July  1,  1782.) 
From  Franklin,  July  18,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  24, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Criticising  a  communication  of  Shelburne  as  meant  to  sow  dissen- 
sion, July  28,  1782. 
To  Washington.     As  to  Asgill's  case,  July  29,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  Oswald's  power,  Aug.  8,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  8,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin,  acknowledging  letter,  Aug.  23,  1782. 
Position  of,  as  to  separate  peace.     Luzerne  to  Congress,  Sept.  24,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  progress  of  negotiations,  Sept.  24,  1782. 
As  to  peace  negotiations  of.     See  Introduction,  §  53. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  Barclay's  commission,  Oct.  3,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Oct.  14,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  8, 1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Washington,  lHov.  21,  1782. 

(See  Washington  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  235 

Vergenxes — Continued. 

Froul  La  Fayette,  Nov.  2-2, 1782. 

(See  La  Faj/cfte  to  Ver(/c)ines,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Nov.  :>0,  1782, 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergeniics,  same  date. ) 
To  Luzerne.     Discussing  the  peace;  saying  that  he  had  in  no  way  interfered, 
nor  had  he  been  informed  of  the  progress  of  the  negotiations;  had  l»een 
pained  at  the  immediate  announcement  of  the  articles  to  the  United  States, 
they  being  only  provisional;  the  French  treaty  not  yet  concluded,  but  is  in 
rapid  progress ;  Spain  has  got  to  be  satisfied;  the  American  commissioners* 
however,  did  not  even  ask  as  to  this  matter,  Dec.  19,  1782. 
To  Franklin.     Complaining  of  the  separate  action  of  the  American  commission- 
ers, Dec.  15,  1782. 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  15,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  satne  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Dec.  17, 1782. 

(See  Iranklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     As  to  progress  of  French  negotiation,  Dec.  25,  1782. 
From  La  Fayette,  Jan.  1,  1783. 

(SeeZa  Fayette  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
Fairness  of  position  of,  in  peace  negotiations.     Livingston  to  Jay,  Jan.  3,  1783. 
To  Franklin.    Asking  for  an  interview  with  American  commissioners,  Jan.  16,  1783. 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  18,  1783. 

(See Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  25,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
His  course  as  to  Holland  explained.     Dumas  to  Adams,  Feb.  4,  1783. 
Distrusted  by  Adams.     Adams  to  Dumas,  Feb.  5,  1783. 
To  Luzerne.     As  to  loans  to  the  United  States ;  showing  their  difficulty,  Mar.  10, 

1783. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  16,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  24,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin f  May  4,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.  As  to  treaty,  May  5,  1783. 
From  Franklin,  May  5,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
To  Franklin.     Proposes  new  articles  to  treaty  between  France  and  the  United 

States,  May  20,  1783. 
From  Franklin  and  Jay,  June  28,  1783. 

(See  T'rankUn  and  Jay  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin  and  Jay.     Appealing  earnestly  for  financial  relief,  June  28, 1783. 
To  La  Fayette.     That  L'Orient  is  a  free  port,  June  29,  1783. 
From  Franklin,  July  4,  1783. 

(See Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  14, 1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
Character  and  efforts  of,  commended  by  Franklin.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  July 

22,  1783. 
Position  of,  discussed.     Adams  to  Livingston,  Aug.  15,  1783. 
From  Franklin,  Aug.  16,  1783. 

(See  Franklin  to  Vergennes,  same  date.) 
Refused  to  sign  definitive  treaty  with  England  until  that  with  the  United  States 
is  signed.    Franklin  to  Congress,  Sept.  13,  1783.     (See  Introduction  v^  53,  5  4.) 


236  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

VERGENNES—Cnu  tinned. 

To  Franklin.     Asking  that  the  treaty  stipulation  that  no  other  nation  shall  have 

superior  advantages  to  France  be  put  in  an  official  note,  Aug.  27, 1784. 
From  Franklin.     Giving  such  note,  Sept.  3,  1784.     (Accepted  by  Vergennes,  Sept. 

9,  1784.) 
To  FranMin.     As  to  commercial  treaties,  Sept.  9,  1784. 
To  Franklin.     As  to  accounts,  Oct.  30,  1784. 
Vernon,  governor  of  Tovrer.    To  Sir  Ct.  Cooper.    Saying  that  Laurens  was  well  treated 

and  contented,  Nov.  27,  1780. 
Vessels.     (See  Shijys,  Supplies.) 

Deane  requests  Beaumarchais  to  obtain.     Deane  to  Beaumarehais,  Aug.  19,  1770. 

American,  detained  as  pirates.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  17,  1776. 

And  goods.     Dutch.     Orders  of  council  as  to  seizure  of.     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan. 

1,  1781. 
Taken  after  peace.    Restitution  of.     Livingston  to  Dighy,  Apr.  12,  1783 ;  Livingston 
to  Greene,  Apr.  12,  1783. 
Vienna.     A  commissioner  to  court  of.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Dec.  30,  1776. 

(See  W.  Lee.) 
Vienne.     (See  Introduction,  ^  78.) 
ViOMENiL.     (See  Introduction  $  78.) 
Virginia — 

Attempts  of,  to  purchase  arms  in  Europe.     Franklin  to  Vergennes,  May  3,  31,  1779. 
Difficulties  attending  separate  application  of,  for  foreign  aid.     Morris  to  Governor, 

Apr.  27,  1782. 
Supplies  to,  to  be  charged  to  the  United  States.     Morris  to  Franklin,  Oct.  27,  1782. 
(See  State  purchases.) 
ViTORiA.     A.  Lee's  arrival  at.     A.  Lee  to  Committee,  Feb.  26,  1777. 
Walpole  Grant.     Character  of.     Introduction,  $^S  189,  202. 
Walpole,  Horace — 

Advocates  American  independence.     Introduction,  ^^  31. 
Notices  of  Franklin.     Ilnd.,  §  123. 
Walpole,  Thomas— 

His  position  as  a  peace  intermediary.     Introduction,  $  202.     (See  Shelhurne  to 

Oswald,  May  21,  1782.) 
Interview  with  Franklin  of  June  15,  1782.     Franklin^s  journal,  under  date  of  July 
1,  1782. 
Walsh,  R.     His  views  as  to  British  barbarism.     Introduction,  <§  22. 
Walteksdorff.     From  Ro^iencrone,  Feb.  22, 1783. 
(See  Eosencrone  to  IValtersdorff,  same  date.) 
War— 

Science  of.     Its  relations  to  finance  and  diplomacy.     Introduction,  ^  1  ^. 
Revolutionary.     (See  Bevoluiion,  Washington.) 
Washington's  policy  as  to.     Introduction,  ^S  9  ff. 
British  barbarism  in.     Ibid.,  ^  22. 
French  officers  engaged  in.     Ibid.,  ^^  78,  82. 
Prisoners  taken  in.     (See  Prisoners.) 

Progress  of.     (See  Deane  to  Morris,  Sept.  7,  Oct.  8,  Nov.  9,  1776;  Committee  to 

Deane,  Oct.  1,  1776;  Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3,  1776;  Committee  to  Commissioners, 

Feb.  19,  June  13,  May  2,  July  2,  Aug.  7, 8, 1777 ;  Carmichael  to  Dumas,  June  13, 

1777;  Jan.  21, May  14,1.5,  1778.) 

Account  of  Howe's  capture  of  Philadelphia  and    consequences.    Committee  to 

Commissioners,  Oct.  6,  Dec.  2,  1777. 
Burgoyne's  defeat  and  surrender.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  31,  1777. 
Capture  of  Delaware  forts.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Dec.  2,  1777. 


PKELlxMlNARY    INDEX.  237 

War — Continued. 

Between  England  and  France  existing  though  not  declared.    Commissioners  to 

Congress,  July  23,  1778. 
Hostilities  at  sea  begun.    Commissioners  to  Congress,  July  28,  1778.     (See  Intro- 
duction, \S  151.) 
Has  no  effect  on  the  gaiety  of  France.     Franklin  to  Luzerne,  Mar.  6, 1780. 
Declared  by  England  against  Holland.    Carmiohael  to  Committee,  Jan.  4,  1781. 
Preparations  for  war  proposed  by  the  Prince  of  Orang<;,     Adams  to  Congress,  Jan. 

15,  1781.     (See  Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  29,  1781.) 
Preparations  for,  by  Spain.    Carmichael  to  Committee,  Jan.  29,  1781. 
Ameliorations  of.     Franklin  to  Vaughan,  July  10,  1782. 
Cessation  of.     Declaration  of,  Jan.  20, 1783.     Franklin  to  Livingston,  Jan.  21,  1783; 

Adams  to  Livingston,  Jan.  23,  1783. 
Proclamations  of  cessation  of,  Feb.  14,  20,  1783. 

Liability  of  Congress  for  damages  to  citizens  inflicted  in.     Morris  to  Congress, 
Jan.  21,  1784. 
Warder.     Suspicious  conduct  of.     Deane  to  Committee,  Aug.  18,  1776. 
Warren,  Captain.     Complained  of  by  Vergennes,  May  15,  1778. 
Warren,  James — 

From  Adams,  Aug.  4,  1778. 

(See  Adams  to  Warren,  same  date.) 
From  Adams,  Feb.  23,  1780. 
(See  Adams  to  Warren,  same  date.) 
Washington— 

His  position  as  to  revolutionary  politics.     Introduction,  ^  Iff. 

His  military  policy-.     Lhid.,  $  9. 

Congressional  opposition  to.     Ibid.,  §  11. 

Apj)roval  of,  by  foreign  authorities.     Ibid.,  $  12. 

His  opinion  of  Franklin.     Ibid.,  $  113. 

His  fortitude  in  disaster.     Ibid.,  $  8. 

Cabal  against.     Ibid.,  $  11. 

His  unique  grandeur.     Ibid.,  §  13. 

His  superiority  to  other  revolutionary  characters.     Ibid.,  ^  13. 

Jealousy  of,  shown  by  A.  Lee.     A.  Lee  to  Colden,  Fob.  13,  1776. 

His  magnanimity  in  forwarding  the  Lee-Colden  papers.    Note  to  A.  Lee  to  Colden, 

Feb.  13,  1776. 
To  E.  H.Lee.     As  to  campaign,  etc.,  May  18,  1776. 
From  Deane,  Sept.  15, 1776. 

(See  Deane  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
Returns  Lord  Howe's  letter  as  not  addres'sed  with  his  rank.     Deane  to  Dumas,  Oct. 

6,  1776. 
Approval  of  his  course  by  European  generals.    Commissioners  to  Committee,  Feb. 

6,  1777.     Introduction,  ^  12. 
To  Jay.     Importance  of  official  publication  of  foreign  news,  Mar.  1, 1777. 
From  Franklin  (two  letters),  June  13,  1777. 
(See  Franklin  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  A.  Lee.     Letter  of  compliment,  narrating  also  improvement  in  Prussian  armSj 
June  15,  1777. 
(See  A.  Lee  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Lovell.     As  to  engagement  of  engineers  by  Congress,  July  24,  1777. 

(See  Lovell  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  H.  Laurens,  May  5,  1778. 

(See  H.  Laurens  to  Washington,  sauio  date.) 
Cabal  against,  denounced.     Rutledge  to  Jay,  Dec.  25, 1778.     (See  Butledge  to  Wash- 
ington,  and  see  also  Introduction,  $  11.) 


238  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Washington— Continued. 

To  Jay.     Inquires  as  to  disposition  of  the  Continental  frigates,  and  as  to  tlie  cur- 
rency and  other  matters  before  Congress,  Apr.  20,  1771). 
From  Jay,  Apr.  26,  1779. 

(See  Jay  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Jay.     Alarm  of,  at  condition  of  currency.  May  10,  1779. 
Conference  of,  with  Luzerne,  Sept.  16,  1779. 
From  Luzerne,  Jan.  23,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     Prospects  of  coming  camx)aign,  Feb.  4,  1780. 
To  Luzerne.     As  to  certain  field  operations,  Feb.  15,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  5, 1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Apr.  29,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washingtoii,  same  date. ) 
To  Luzerne.     Expressions  of  courtesy.  May  5,  1780. 
To  Luzerne.     Death  of  Miralles;  arrival  of  La  Fayette,  May  11,  1780. 
From  Luzerne,  May  21,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     Recognition  of  courtesies,  and  plans  for  co- operation,  June  5,  1780. 
To  Luzerne.     Suggests  plan  of  joint  campaign,  July  27,  Aug.  4,  6,  1780. 
To  Luzerne.     Inclosing  letter  to  Guichen,  Sept.  12,  1780. 
From  Luzerne,  July  30,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     Critical  condition  of  affairs;  military  plans,  Sept.  13,  1760. 
To  Luzerne.     Preparations  for  campaign;  want  of  clothing,  Dec.  1,  J780. 
From  Luzerne,  Dec.  5,  1780. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.)  / 

To  Luzerne.     As  to  attitude  of  affairs,  Dec.  14,  1780. 
From  Laurens^  Mar.  24,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Mar.  27,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.; 
To  Luzerne.    Open  letter  to  Rochambeau  received ;  French  iieet  returned  to  New- 
port; its  bravery.  Mar.  31,  1781. 
From  Latirens,  Apr.  11,  1781. 

(See  Laurens  to  Washington,  same  date.;; 
From  Luzerne,  May  7,  1781. 

(See  Washington  to  Luzerne,  same  date.^ 
To  Luzerne.     As  to  plan  of  joint  campaign,  May  23,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  May  25,  1781.) 
From  Luzerne,  June  1,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.; 
To  Luzerne.     As  to  plan  of  campaign,  June  13,  1781. 
From  Morris,  June  15,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.; 
To  Morris.     As  to  obtaining  transports,  Aug.  2, 1781. 
From  McEean,  Aug.  12,  1781. 

(See  McEean  to  Washington,  same  date.; 
From  Morris  and  Peters,  Aug.  13,  1781. 

(See  Morris  and  Peters  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     Projected  military  operations;  supplies,  Aug.  17,  27^  178L 
To  Morris,  Aug.  17,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  239 

Washingtox— Colli  iuuod. 

From  Morris,  Aug.  22,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     Necessity  of  money  for  troops,  Sept.  6,  1781. 
From  Morris.     Promising  remittance,  Sept.  G,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Washinyton,  aamo  date.) 
To  Morris.     As  to  payments,  etc.,  Sept.  7,  1781. 
From  Morris,  Sept.  10,  1781. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  4,  1781. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington, sSbUiQi  date.) 
To  Morris.     As  to  acconnts,  Nov.  19,  1781. 
To  Morris.     As  to  position  of  army,  Jan.  25,  1782. 
From  La  Fayette,  Jan.  30,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Mar.  30,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Apr.  12,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne.    On  the  preparations  of  America  for  the  coming  campaign,  Apr. 
13,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Apr.  18,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date. ) 
To  Morris.    As  to  feeding  the  Army,  Apr.  23,  1782. 
To  Luzerne.     Condition  of  military  affairs,  Apr.  28,  1782. 
And  Greene.     From  Livingston,  May  13,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Washington  and  Greene,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  May  17,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Livingston.     Acknowledging  announcement  of  birth  of  Dh/uphiu,  May  22, 1782. 
From  Morris,  June  4,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     As  to  Dauphin's  birth,  June  5,  1782. 
From  Luzerne,  June  10,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  June  21,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     Position  of  Army,  June  24,  1782. 
From  Morris,  June  29,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  July  3,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  July  8,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date. 
From  Vergennes,  July  29,  1782. 

(See  Vergennes  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Aug.  5,  1782. 

(See  lAizerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Aug.  14,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Aug.  29,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Aug.  30,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  IFasMni^^ow,  same  date.) 


240  PKELIMINARY    INDEX. 

Washington — Uontinued. 

From  Morris,  Sept.  9,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.    As  to  British  movements,  Sept.  21, 1782. 
From  Luzerne,  Sept.  29,  1782. 

(^ee  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Oct.  1,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Oct.  14,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  15,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     As  to  expenses  of  expresses,  Oct.  18,  1782. 
To  Jay.     Evacuation  of  Charleston,  contingencies  of  peace,  Oct.  18,  1782. 
From  La  Fayette,  Oct.  24,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  President  of  Congress.     As  to  Asgill's  case,  Oct.  25,  1782. 
From  Luzerne,  Oct.  25,  1782. 

{^0,0,  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.)  ' 

To  Luzerne.     As  to  Asgill's  case,  Oct.  25,  1782. 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  6,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  12,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Asgill.     Keleasiug,  Nov.  13,  1782. 

To  Vergennes.     As  to  cases  of  Huddy  and  Asgill,  Nov.  21,  1782. 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  30,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  Dec.  4,  1782. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Dec.  18,  1782. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     As  to  testimonial  to  Rochambeau,  Dec.  20,  1782. 
From  Morris,  Jan.  21,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Livingston,  Feb.  2(5,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Washington,  name  d'dte.) 
From  Morris,  Feb.  27,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     Expressing  confidence,  Mar.  8,  1783. 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  12,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Luzerne,  Mar.  15,  1783. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Hamilton,  Mar.  17,  1783. 

(See  Hamilton  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     As  to  war  policy.  Mar.  19,  1783. 
From  Livingston,  Mar.  24,  1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Luzerne.     Congratulations  on  general  peace  and  recognition  of  the  noble  part 

taken  by  France,  Mar.  29,  1783. 
From  Luzerne,  Apr.  10,  1783. 

(See Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.; 
From  Livingston,  Apr.  12, 1783. 

(See  Livingston  to  Washington,  same  date.) 


PRELIMINARY    INDEX.  241 

Washington — Continued . 

To  Livingston.     Final  exchange  of  prisoners,  Apr.  22,  1783. 

To  Luzerne.     Preparations  in  the  Army  for  display  of  joy  at  peace,  May  l:^,  1783. 

To  LiviiKjston.     As  to  delay  in  delivery  of  New  Yovk,  May  13,  1783. 

From   Morris,  May  29,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     As  to  mouey  for  payment  of  troops,  Aug.  6,  1783. 
From  Morris,  Ang.  12,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
To  Morris.     As  to  taking  possession  of  western  posts,  Aug.  30,  1783. 
From  Luzerne,  Nov.  21,  1783. 

(See  Luzerne  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Sept.  2,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
From  La  Fayette,  May  14,  1784. 

(See  La  Fayette  to  Washington,  same  date.) 
Waters,  Captain.     Cruise  of.     Adams  to  Genet,  May  3,  1780. 
Weare.     From  Livingston,  Sept.  9,  1782. 

(See  Livingston  to  Weare,  same  date.) 
Wedderburn — 

Etfect  of  his  attack  on  Franklin.     Introduction,  $  123. 

As  to  his  mission  to  France.     Beane  to  Committee,  Aug.  18,  1776  ;   W.  Lee  to  Dumas, 
Sept.  10;  1776. 
Weibert.     From  J.  P.  Jones,  Nov.  1,  1777, 

(See  Jones  to  Weihert,  same  date.) 
Weissensteix  (a  spy).     From  Franklin,  Jtily  1,  1778. 

(See  Franklin  to  Weissenstein,  same  date.) 
Wendell.     From  Morris,  May  1,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Wendell,  same  date.) 
Wentworth,  Paul — 

A  British  secret  agent.     Introduction,  §  208. 

Declines  to  present  petition  of  1775.     Franklin  to  Thomson,  Feb.  5,  1775, 
His  relations  to  A.  Lee.     Introduction,  ^  137. 
West  Indies— 

Resolution  of  Congress  as  to  sending  vessels  to  purchase  arms  in,  May  8,  1776* 
Importance  of  attacking  Britain  in.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  8.  1776. 
Importance  of  trade  of     Livingston  to  Franklin,  Sept.  3, 178'2, 
Exclusion  of   United  States  ships  from  trade  of,  declared  by  Fox  to  be  inten- 
tional.    Laurens  to  Ministers  at  Paris,  Aug.  9,  1783. 
(See  Hartley  to  Franklin,  Sept.  24,  1783.) 
Instructions  of  Congress  as  to  trade  with.     Congress,  Dec.  31,  1782. 
Weymouth.     His  views  as  to  Spanish  mediation.     Introduction,  $  98. 
Whale  Fishery— 

British.     Project  for  destroying  and  capturing  vessels,     Franklin  and  Adams  to 
Sartine,  Oct.  30,  1778;  Franklin  to  Congress,  Nov.  7,  1778;  Adams  to  Hunting- 
ton, Oct,  19,  1779. 
Wharton,  Samuel — 

His  position  in  i>olitics  and  business.     Introduction,  $  189. 
Et  al.     From  Franklin,  Apr.  8,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Wharton  et  ah,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Nov,  1,  1780, 

(See  Franklin  to  Wharton,  same  date.) 
Whigs,  English — 

Attitude  of,  to  the  United  States.     Introduction,  $  27  ff. 
Position  of,  in  history.     Introduction,  §  8. 

16  WH 


242  PRELIMINARY    INDEX. 

White  et  al.     From  Franklin,  Feb.  21,  1780. 

{See  Franklin  to  White,  same  date.) 
WiCKES,  Captaiu  Lambert— 

To  cruise  with  the  Beprisal  in  Europe.     Committee  to  Commissioners,  Oct.  24, 1776. 
Takes  Frankliu  to  France.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Nov.  4,  1776  ;  FYanklin  to 

Deane,  Dec.  4,  1776;  Franklinto   Committee,  Dec.  8,  1776. 
His  efficiency  highly  commended  ;  takes  two  prizes.     Franklin  to  Deane,  Dec.  4, 
1776;  Franklin  to  President  of  Congress,  Dae.  8,  1776;   Franklin  to  Committee, 
Dec.  8, 1776. 
Cruise  of.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  12, 1777.     (See  Dca/j^  to  Morris,  Aug. 

23,  1777.) 
French  complaints  of  his  privateering,  July  16,  1777. 
Lost  at  sea.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Nov.  30,  1777  ;  Lovell  to  Bingham,  Mar. 

2,  1778. 
As  to  captures  bye     Commissioners  to  Sartine,  May  14, 1778. 
Wilkes,  John.     His  bad  character  and  bad  influence  on  A.  Lee.     Introduction,  ^  139  ; 

on  W.  Lee.     Ibid.,  $  175  ;  on  Sayre.     Ibid.,  $  172. 
William  III.     Immense  A'alue  of  his  services  to  England,  and  consequently   to  the 

United  States.     Introduction,  $  8. 
Williams,  Jonathan — 

Biographical  notice  of.     Introduction,  ^i^  186-188. 

Employed  as  business  agent  at  Nantes.     Commissioners  to  Committee,  Mar.  4,  1777. 

Consignments  to.     Commissioners  to    Williams,  May  1,  1777. 

(See  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee  to  Williams,  same  date.) 
His  good  character  as  agent.     Deane  to  Morris,  Sept.  23,  1777. 
Question  as  to  continuance  of  his  agency.     Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  Apr.  6,  1778. 
From  Commissioners.     Revoking  his  authority,  May  25.  1778. 
Criticised  and  denounced  by.     A.  Lee  to  Congress,  June  1,  9,  Sept.  9,  1778. 
Economical  course  of.     Deane  to  Congress,  Oct.  12,  Nov.  19,  1778. 
From  Franklin,  Feb.  13,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Williams,  same  date  ;  and  see  Franklin  to  A.  Lee  and  Franklin 
to  Blake  eial.,  of  same  dates.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  16,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Williams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin.     As  to  futility  of  A.  Lee's  objections  to  Williams'  accounts,  Mar- 
19,  1779. 
(See  Franklin  to  Williams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Apr.  8,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Williams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  July  8,  1779. 

(See  Franklin  to  Williams,  sa,TQe  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Jan.  9,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Williams,  same  date.) 
Franklin  declines  to  urge  him  for  agency,  but  speaks  highly  of  bim.     Franklin  to 

Adams,  Apr.  22,  1780. 
From  Franklin,  May  10,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Williams,  same  date.) 
From  Franklin,  Mar.  23,  1782. 

(See  Franklin  to  Williams,  same  date.) 
Williamson,  Dr. — 

Deane's  erroneous  statement  as  to.     Deane  to  Committee,  Oct.  1,  1776. 
Again  nnpistly  criticised.     Deane  to  Committee,  Nov.  28,  1776;  Deane  to  Jay,  Dec.  3, 
1776. 

WiLLINK  &  Co. — 

From  Morris,  Sept.  24,  1782. 

(See  Morris  to  Willink  Sf  Co.,  same  date.) 


PKELIMINARY    INDEX.  243 

WiLLiNK  &  Co. — Coutiiiueil. 
From  Alorris,  Aiij;.  6,  1783. 

(Sec  Morris  to  WillinU  tj"-  Co.,  same  date.) 
From  Morris,  Oct.  23,  1783. 

(Seo  Morris  to  lyUlink  <f-  Co.,  stime  tlate.) 
From  Morris  (two  letters),  Dec.  31,  1783. 

(See  Morris  to  JVillink  cjf"  Co,  same  date.) 
From  Morris  (two  letters),  Feb.  12, 1784. 
(Seo  Morris  to  JFillink  <y-  Co.,  same  date.) 
Wilson,  J.    Views  of,  as  to  wrougfulness  of  concealment  from  France  of  separate  ar- 
ticle of  prelimiuaries  of  1780.     Reported  by  Madison  in  Dehales  of  Congress, 
Mar.  2-2,  1783. 
WiTHERSPOON,  Dr.  J.  (the  father) — 

Notes  as  to  his  history,  under  date  of  Jan.  12,  1778,  infra. 

(With  Lovell)  to  Commissioners.     As  to  loss  of  Folj^er's  mail,  Jan.  12,  1778. 

(With  Lovell)  to  Commissioners.      Burgoyne's  surrender;    Howe's  occupation  of 

Philadelphia,  Jan.  21,  1778. 
Views  of,  as  to  iustructions  to  peace  commissioners.     Congress,  Aug.  8,  1782. 
WiTHERSPOON,  J.  (the  son) — 

Arrest  of,  at  Eustatia.     Lovell  to  Franklin,  May  9,  1781. 

Release  of.     Franklin  to  Lovell,  Sept.  13,  1781 ;  Franklin  to  IVitherspoon,  Nov.  19, 
1781. 
Wren.     From  Franklin,  Feb.  26,  1780. 

(See  Franklin  to  Wren,  same  date.) 
Yeates.     From  Morris,  Aug.  28,  17^!1. 

(See  Morris  to  Yeates,  same  date.) 
Yorke,  Sir  J. — 

Dictatorial  address  to  Amsterdam.     Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  Mar.  21,  1777. 
Complains  of  hospitality  to  Paul  Jones.     Yorke  to  States-General,  Oct.  29,  1779. 
Memorial  of,  to  Holland.     Adams  to  Congress,  Apr.  3,  1780  ;  Adams  to  Congress,  Nov. 

16,  1780.     (See,  as  to  his  other  i)roceedings,  Adams,  Dumas.) 
Insolence  of  his  letter  produced  much  displeasure  in  Holland,  causing  adhesion 

to  armed  neutrality.     Franklin  to  Congress,  Dec.  3,  1780. 
His  overbearing  conduct  in  Holland  and  the  results.     Adams  to  Congress,  Dec.  18, 

1780 ;  Dumas  to  Congress,  Dec.  19,  1780. 
Presents  memorials  to  the  States- General  for  disavowal,  satisfaction,  and  punish- 
ment  of   ott'enders ;    ordered  to  return  to  England  without  taking  leave. 
Adams  to  Congress,  Jan.  5,  1781. 
Arbitrary  conduct  of,  in  The  Netherlands.     (See  manifesto,  contained  in  Adams  to 
Congress,  Mar.  18, 1781.)    Adams  to  Livingston,  Feb.  21, 1782. 
YORKTOWN.     Surrender  of  Cornwallis  at.    Celebration  of,  at  Philadelphia.     Morrisio 

Luzerne, 'i^OY.  3,  1781.     (See  Cornwallis,  Rochamheau,  Washington.) 
ZfiALAND.     Movements  of,  towards  negotiations  with  England.     Adams  to  Congress, 
Jan.  15, 1781. 


INTRODUCTION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

MUNICIPAL   RELATIONS   OF   REVOLUTIONARY  DIPLOMACY. 

Relation  of  military  and  financial  to  diplomatic  polity,  ^^  1;  two  revolutionary  schools — 
(1)  liberative,  and  (2)  constructive  or  administrative,  $  2 ;  influence  on  the  first  of 
want  of  administrative  experience,  ^  3;  constructive  or  administrative  school, 
$  4;  Washington,  §  4a;  Franklin,  §  46;  Morris,  $  4c;  Livingston,  Jay,  §  id;  Jef- 
ferson, ^  4*?;  Hamilton,  '^  4/;  Madison,  vS  4g;  J.Adams,  ^  4/j;  objection  of  "Fabian- 
ism "  to  the  second  school,  $  5 ;  argued  in  reply  that  mere  force  is  overcome  by  force 
and  skill,  and  that  the  object  of  the  Revolution  was  to  build  up,  ^  6;  corrupting 
influences  in  European  politics,  ^J  7;  English  historical  parallelisms,  ^  8;  conflict 
of  opinion  as  to  military  policy,  and  particularly  that  of  Washington,  which  was 
the  adaptation  of  settled  principles  of  science  to  national  conditions,  $  9;  this 
policy  part  of  a  system  applicable  also  to  finance  and  diplomacy,  $  10;  opposi- 
tion to  it  in  Congress  from  the  ''cabal"  and  others,  $  11  ;  its  approval  abroad, 
1^  12 ;  and  also  at  home,  §  13 ;  similar  conflict  as  to  finance,  and  herein  of  Robert 
Morris,  $  14;  similar  conflict  as  to  diplomacy  as  a  system  based  on  international 
comity,  ^  15;  insistence  on  pressing  ministers  on  foreign  courts  without  their 
acquiescence,  $  16  ;  objections  to  this  by  Franklin  and  Livingston,  ^  17  ;  impolicy 
of  forcing  this  issue,  $  18;  its  bad  effects,  ^  19. 

CHAPTER  11. 

ATTITUDE   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES  TO   FOREIGN  NATIONS. 

Growing  aversion  to  Britain,  $  20;  caused  by  British  arrogance,  ^  21,  barbarity,  $  22; 
dissoluteness  and  frivolity,  $  23,  and  abandonment  of  loyalists,  ^  24;  growing 
aftection  for  France,  $  25 ;  towards  other  nations  reserve,  while  appealing  for  aid, 
^  20. 

CHAPTER  III. 

ATTITUDE   OF   GREAT  BRITAIN  TO  THE   UNITED   STATES. 

King  and  Parliament  hostile  and  yielding  only  to  necessity,  $  27 ;  diplomacy  of  refu- 
gees, §  28;  attempts  to  break  French  alliance,  $  29;  corruption  of  public  men  and 
forgery  of  papers,  §  30;  policy  of  Rockingham  whigs  tending  towards  absolute 
recognition  of  independence,  ^  31 ;  policy  of  Chatham,  and  afterwards  of  Shel- 
burne,  tending  towards  federal  union,  and  afterwards  towards  independence 
with  commercial  union,  $  32. 

245 


INTRODUCTION. 
CHAPTER  IV. 

ATTITUDE  OF   FRANCE   TO   THE  UNITED   STATES. 

Temporary  hostility  to  France  engendered  by  treaty  of  1763,  ^  33 ;  hostility  from 
France  to  England  permanent,  $  34 ;  treaty  not  disadvantageous  to  the  United 
States,  $  35  ;  policy  of  Lonis  XV  one  of  investigation  and  intrigue,  $  36 ;  policy 
of  Louis  XVI  at  first  one  of  reserve,  §  37  ;  secret  investigations  resumed  in  1774, 
Bonvouloir,  $  38;  Vergennes  "Reflexions,"  1775,  $  39;  Rayneval's  report,  March, 
1776,  $  40;  position  of  Vergennes,  $  41;  St.  Germain,  Turgot,  $  42;  French  motive 
not  exclusively  revenge,  ^  43  ;  effect  of  battle  of  Saratoga,  $  44 ;  recognition  of 
and  treaties  with  the  United  States,  $  45 ;  question  as  to  rescinding  article  jiro- 
hi biting  France  from  imposing  duty  on  export  of  molasses,  $  46 ;  announcement 
of  treaties  to  Spain,  $  47  ;  and  to  Britain,  $  48 ;  consequent  declaration  of  war, 
$  49 ;  Vergennes,  his  history  and  characteristics,  ^^  50  ;  opinions  of  him  by  Jeffer- 
son, Franklin,  Eden,  and  Everett,  $  51 ;  charge  against  him  of  duplicity  in  1778-'79 
as  to  aid  to  America,  $  52  ;  charge  of  siding  against  the  United  States  as  to  the 
fisheries  and  as  to  Spain,  ^  53 ;  his  fidelity  to  independence,  $  54  ;  his  relations  to 
Beaumarchais,  §  55;  Beaumarchais  and  his  character,  $56;  opinions  of  him  by 
Martin,  Guizot,  §  57;  bj^  Lora6nie,  Doniol,  Still6,  §  58;  his  skill  in  secret  diplo- 
macy, v^  59  ;  urges  on  Louis  XVI  to  intervene  in  America,  $  60  ;  ''  Roderique  Ilor- 
talez  &  Co.,"  $  61;  question  how  far  Beaumarchais'  shipments  were  on  his  own 
account,  §  62;  partial  congressional  settlement  of  1779,  $  63;  "contract"  of 
1783,  explanatory  of  subsidies,  $  64;  the  ''lost  million,"  Franklin's  efforts  at  solu- 
tion, $  65;  refusal  of  French  ministry  to  explain,  ^  66  ;  Beaumarchais'  appeal  to 
Congress  of  June,  1787,  $  67  ;  French  ministry  admit  payment  to  Beaumarchais, 
^  6S  ;  the  claim  on  its  merits,  $  69  ;  no  inference  to  be  drawn  from  its  non-speci- 
fication of  object,  being  secret-service  money,  $  70 ;  settlement  in  1831,  $  71 ; 
La  Fayette,  his  services  and  character,  ^  72 ;  Francy,  $  73 ;  Dubourg,  $  74 ;  La- 
margais,  $  75;  Count  Broglie  (orBroglio)  in  French  politics,  §  76;  suggested  for 
American  commander-in-chief,  $  77;  French  officers,  La  Fayette,  Aboville,  Ar- 
mand,  Berthier,  V.  Broglie,  Charlus,  Chastellux,  Custine,  Damas,  Dumas,  DuPor- 
tail,  Fleury,  the  Lameths,  Lauzun,  Mauduit,  Noailles,  Segur,  Vauban,  A.  and 
C.  Viomenil,  Rochambeau,  Duponceau,  $  78;  Kalb  (DeKalb),  his  early  life,  $  79  ; 
his  secret  mission  to  America  in  1767,  ^  80 ;  his  entrance  into  American  service, 
$  81 ;  Coudray,  ^  82 ;  Gerard,  $  83 ;  Luzerne,  ^  84  ;  Marbois,  "^  85. 

CHAPTER  V. 

ATTITUDE   OF    SPAIN   TO    THE    UNITED   STATES. 

Willing  to  foster  American  revolts  as  such,  but  not  willing  to  acknowledge  inde- 
pendence, ^  86 ;  grant  of  a  million  of  francs  in  1776  and  subsequently  of  stores, 
$  87 ;  Florida  Blanca,  $  88 ;  Aranda,  ^  89. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

ATTITUDE   OF  OTHER  EUROPEAN  STATES. 

Prussia  at  first  disposed  to  encourage  Congress,  $  90  ;  change  of  policy  when  recogni- 
tion would  involve  war  with  Britain,  $  91 ;  Russia,  ambition  of  empress  to  lead 
Europe,  $  92 ;  her  policy  to  build  up  Russian  commerce,  and  hence  the  armed 
neutrality,  §  93  ;  her  position  as  mediator,  §  94;  failure  of  Dana's  mission,  $  95; 
German  emperor  unfriendly  to  Revolution,  $  96;  Netherlands  desirous  of  retaining 
neutral  trade,  but  ultimately  drawn  into  war  as  an  ally,  ^  97  ;  Tuscany  declines  to 
receive  minister,  ^  97a. 

246 


INTRODUCTION 
CHAPTER  VII. 

MEDIATION. 

By  Spain,  $  93 ;  by  the  imperial  courts,  $  99. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

QUESTIONS  OF   INTERNATIONAL   LAW   INVOLVED. 

Neutral  govcrnmeuts  can  not  furnish  money  or  arms  to  belligerents,  but  their  subjects 
may,  $  100;  French  Government  indirectly  intervenes  by  giving  money  and  arms 
to  an  agency  engaged  in  forwarding  these  supplies,  <^  101  ;  this  a  breach  of  neu- 
trality, §  102. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

DIFFICULTIES   OF   REVOLUTIONARY  DIPLOMACY. 

From  domestic  organization,  $  103;  from  congressional  vacillation,  ^  104;  from  dif- 
ficnlry  of  ocean  correspondence  and  its  intercepting  and  falsification,  $  105;  from 
undue  multiplication  of  envoys,  §  106;  from  extraneous  burdens,  $  107;  from  de- 
fective arrangements  as  to  salaries  and  expenses,  §  108;  from  delicacy  of  position 
as  to  France  growing  out  of  instructions  to  consult  her,  •$  109;  conflict  between 
commissioners  at  Paris  as  to  these  instructions,  ^S  110;  instructions  not  in  them- 
selves extraordinary,  $  111. 

CHAPTER  X. 

FRANKLIN. 

His  appointment,  age,  and  infirmities,  $  112;  his  probity  and  courage,  ^  113;  high 
intellectual  gifts,  §  114;  knowledge  of  existing  jiolitical  conditions,  $  115;  a 
"  liberal  constructive,"  §  116 ;  his  alleged  failure  to  appeal  to  sanctions  higher 
than  policj',  §  117  ;  immense  amount  of  business  imi>osed  on  him,  §  118  ;  neither 
indolent  nor  dissipated,  ^  119 ;  his  success  as  a  dii)lomatist,  $  120 ;  his  high  rep- 
utation conducive  to  such  success,  ^  121 ;  his  influence  in  France,  $  122 ;  feared 
and  courted,  in  England,  ^^  123 ;  his  sympathies  as  between  France  and  England, 
$  124  ;  his  relations  to  Chaumont  and  Passy,  ^  125  ;  his  relations  to  his  colleagues, 
§  126;  his  relations  to  his  family,  §  127;  his  course  on  returning  from  his  mis- 
sion, ^  128. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

JOHN  AND  SAMUEL  ADAMS. 

John  Adams:  His  diplomatic  career,  ^  129;  courage  and  oratorical  power,  $  130;  re- 
sistance to  dominant  influences,  ^  131 ;  how  far  influenced  by  vanity,  ^  132;  zeal- 
ous performance  of  duties,  ^S  133;  changes  in  his  views  as  to  diplomacy,  ^  134;  so 
as  to  his  conception  of  the  Revolution,  $  135. 

Samuel  Adams  :  His  character  and  political  philosophy,  ^  ISca. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

ARTHUR   LEE. 

Outline  of  history,  §  136;  political  position  in  England  down  to  1776,  $  137;  his  con- 
nection with  Wilkes,  ^^S  138  ;  bad  influence  on  bim  of  Wilkes,  §  139  ;  how  far  de- 
termining his  position,  ^  140 ;  "  Colden"  letters,  showing  his  opposition  to  Wash- 
ington and  Franklin,  $  141 ;  accuracy  of  statement  as  to  London  talk  with  Beau- 

247 


INTRODUCTION. 

marcbais,  ^  142;  Lis  stay  in  London  in  1776,  $  143;  his  adhesion  to  ''militia" 
idea  of  diplomacy  and  its  consequences,  $  144  ;  prevalent  opinion  as  to  liis  differ- 
ences with  Franklin,  §  145 ;  his  jealousies  amounting  to  monomania  and  in- 
fluencing his  family  and  friends,  $  146;  effect  of  "Junian"  training  on  his  style, 
^S  147  ;  so  as  to  his  treatment  of  Scotch,  §  148  ;  Franklin's  case  against  him,  ^  149  ; 
his  undue  confidence  in  favorites  and  his  betrayal  by  them,  $  150  ;  imposed  on  by 
decoy  fabrications,  §  151;  suspected  by  Franklin  and  Vergennes,  $  152;  power- 
ful family  and  political  influence,  §  153;  his  course  on  returning  to  America, 
$  154. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

JAY. 

Services  in  foreign  affairs  when  in  Congress,  §  155;  constructive  policy  and  oppo- 
sition to  absorption  of  power  in  Congress,  §  156;  services  on  the  Spanish  mission, 
^  157 ;  during  peace  negotiations,  $  158. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

SILAS   DEANE. 

Congressional  career,  §  159;  his  activity  in  Paris,  *§  160;  strong  anti  British  feelings, 
^  161;  hard  treatment  by  Congress,  »J  162;  intercepted  letters,  §  163;  views  of 
him  by  George  III,  $  164;  position  in  1784-'88,  §  165;  explanation  of  his  course, 
^  166  ;  relief  given  to  his  heirs,  $  167. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

DANA — CARMICHAEL — HENRY   AND   JOHN   LAURENS. 

Dana  :    Early  congressional  career,  ^  168 ;    ii)is.sion  to  Russia,  $    169 ;    subsequent 

career,  $  170. 
Carmichael  :  Diplomatic  career,  ^  171. 

H.  Laukens:  Diplomatic  appointments,  <^S  172;  his  course  in  the  Tower,  ^  173. 
J.  Laurens,  ^S  174. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

WILLIAM   lee— IZARD. 

W.Lee:  English  political  associations,  '^^  175;  American  commercial  appointments 

^  176 ;  diplomatic  ftosts,  ^  177. 
Izard:  Diplomatic  appointments,  $  178  ;  his  course  after  his  return,  'J  179. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

ROBERT   R.    LIVINGSTON — ROBERT    MORRIS— DUMAS. 

Livingston:  Political  career,  §•  180;  attitude  as  to  congressional  parties,  ^  181  ;  pol. 

icy  as  secretary,  ^  182. 
Morris:  Political  career,  ^  183;  services  in  building  up  the  finances  of  the  United 

States,  $  184. 
Dumas:  Honorable  services  to  the  United  States,  ^  185. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

JONATHAN   WILLIAMS— SAMUEL  WHARTON. 

Jonathan  Williams:  History,   $  186;  services  as  naval  and  commercial  agent  in 

France,  '^S  187;  his  subsequent  services,  ^S  188. 
S.  Wharton:  Business  relations  with  Franklin  and  Williams,  ^  189. 

248 


INTRODUCTION. 
CHAPTER  XIX. 

JOHN  PAUL  JONES — STEPHEN   SAYRE. 

J.  Paul  Jones:  His  public  services,  §  190;  effect  of  Lis  cruises,  $  191. 

Stephen  Sayke  :  His  English  associjitioiis,  \S  192;  bis  iidveiitures  ut  Berlin,  Copen- 

bageii,  Stockbolui,  aud  St.  Petersburg,  ^  193;  bis  subsequent  proceedings  in  the 

United  States,  §  194. 

CHAPTER  XX. 

AUSTIN-   fiDWARD   BANCROFT. 

Austin:  Employed  on  special  agency  by  the  United  States,  §  195. 
Bancroft:  Character  of  services  to  American  legation  and  his  relations  to  British 
ministry,  $  196. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

ENGLISH   intermediaries. 

General  characteristics,  $  197  ;  Vanghan,  ^  198;  Hartley,  $  199;  Oswald,  ^  200:  Hut- 
ton,  v^  201 ;  Thomas  Walpole,  ^  202  ;  Pulteuey,  ^S  203. 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

spies. 

Hcrkenhout,  ^S  204 ;  Church,  ^S  205;  Digges,  ^  206;  Thornton,  §  207;  Wentworth,  $ 
208. 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF   CONSTITUTIONAL  LIMITATIONS. 

Growth  of  executive  co-ordinancy,  §  209;  character  and  subsidence  of  opposition  to, 
^  210. 

249 


CHAPTER  I. 

MUNICIPAL  RELATIONS. 

^t^ft^cipromatic  poluT''"'        §  ^  *  '^^^  ^^^tovy  of  the  diplomacy  of  a  country 

involves  the  history  of  its  finances  and  of  its  wars. 
Diplomacy  can  not  be  carried  on  without  money  to  back  it,  or  without 
resting  on  war  as  its  final  process  of  enforcement;  and  when  war  comes, 
diplomacy  does  not  cease.  Then  neutral  sovereigns  interv^ene  on  ques- 
tions of  neutral  rights  and  of  mediation  ;  and  then  unofficial  intermedi- 
aries flit  through  belligerent  territory  with  functions  not  the  less  impor- 
tant because  secret.  In  such  times  every  tax  laid,  every  battle  fought, 
is  a  diplomatic  argument.  This  was  eminently  the  case  with  our  Revo- 
lution. Our  diplomacy  was  one  in  a  large  measure  of  financial  econ- 
omy, as  without  this  we  could  not  inspire  France  with  confidence  or 
Britain  with  dread.  It  was  also  one  in  a  large  measure  of  military 
economy,  as  w^ithout  this  wealth  far  greater  than  we  could  procure  would 
not  have  won  our  independence.  It  was  by  the  use  of  arguments 
drawn  from  finance  and  war  that  our  diplomatists,  as  the  following 
pages  will  show, -sustained  themselves  in  their  discussions  with  neutral 
and  allied  powers,  as  well  as  with  Britain.  Franklin,  for  instance,  was, 
as  will  be  seen,  not  merely  a  diplomatic  agent  in  Paris,  but  he  was 
also,  in  the  negotiation  of  our  loans  from  France  and  the  disbursement 
of  the  funds  thus  obtained,  a  secretary  of  the  treasury ;  w^hile,  in  con- 
certing allied  campaigns,  he  was  to  some  extent  secretary  of  war,  and 
in  directing  our  navy  in  European  waters  to  some  extent  secretary  of 
the  navy.  In  each  of  these  capacities  his  arguments  and  those  of  his 
associates  were  based  on  finance  and  war.  The  success  of  the  siege  of 
Boston,  and  the  surrender  at  Saratoga,  each  brought  about  by  domestic  ^ 
soldiers  and  funds,  won  the  alliance  of  France  in  1778 ;  and  it  was  by 
the  i)rivateers  of  the  United  States  that  British  commerce  was,  in  1777 
and  1778,  so  much  harassed  as  to  immensely  increase,  in  British  eyes, 
the  expense  and  inconvenience  of  the  war.  Hence  it  was  tliat,  no  mat- 
ter how  much  Congress  might  arrogate  to  itself  supreme  power,  execu- 
tive authority  gradually  grew  u^)  as  co  ordinate  with  legislative.  The 
first  form  in  which  this  executive  authoritv  asserted  itself  was  in  that 
of  our  legation  at  Paris,  in  which,  in  i)art  through  Franklin's  genius, 
in  part  from  the  difficulty  of  communicating  with  Congress,  the  func- 
tion of  independent  action  was  vested.  Washington  gradually,  though 
more  slowly,  w^as  able  to  emancipate  himself  in  matters  executive  from 
congressional  dictation.     Then  came  Livingston's  appointment  to  the 

251 


§  2  ]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

department  of  foreign  affairs  and  that  of  Morris  to  that  of  finance. 
But  during  the  Revolution  these  departments,  from  want  of  a  supreme 
chief  magistrate,  worked  together  in  counsel,  as  did,  though  less  effect- 
ively, the  congressional  committees  by  whom  they  were  preceded. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  papers  in  these  volumes  come  not  merely  from  dip- 
lomatists as  such,  hut  from  Washington,  from  Morris,  from  French  and 
American  naval  boards,  from  English  and  European  unofficial  interme- 
diaries, from  foreign  sovereigns.  And  hence  it  is  that  in  these  papers 
the  questions  discussed  are  in  a  large  measure  financial  and  military. 

T  WTO  conflicting  revolutionary        ^  2.  The  partv  coufllcts  betwccn  our  rcvolu- 

schools — "  liberative      and  •*  x  v 

"constructive."  tiouary  Icadcrs  may  be  explained  by  the  antag- 

onism between  two  schools — (1)  the  "  liberative" 
or  ''expulsive,"  whose  sole  object  was  to  get  rid  of  British  authority, 
and  which,  from  abhorrence  of  the  British  executive,  had  come  to  regard 
all  executive  authority  as  a  tyranny ;  and  (2)  the ''  constructive  "  or  "reme- 
dial," whose  members  sought  to  set  up  a  constitutional  system  of  co-ordi- 
nate legislature,  executive,  and  judiciary,  in  the  place  of  the  British  gov- 
ernment, which  its  members  united  with  their  associate  statesmen  in  the 
determination  to  strike  down.*  The  first  school  sought  to  work  execu- 
tive government  through  congressional  committees;  the  second  through 
heads  of  departments,  giving,  however,  large  powers  to  Washington  as 
commander  in-chief,  and  to  Franklin  as  the  head  of  the  legation  at  Paris, 
by  whom  so  much  of  the  political  affairs  of  the  Union  were  controlled. 
By  the  first  school  also  it  was  believed  that  earnest,  untutored  force 
would,  in  every  contest,  crash  the  minions  of  the  despot.  By  the  other 
school  it  was  believed  that  force  without  system  must,  sooner  or  later, 
succumb  to  system  directing  force ;  and  it  was  therefore  maintained 
that  in  each  department  there  should  be  built  up  a  system  in  which  the 
experience  of  civilized  nations  in  the  past  and  their  science  in  the  pres- 
ent should  be  used  to  enable  us  to  make  the  best  of  the  forces  under 
our  control.  The  contest,  principally  in  Congress,  between  the  leaders 
of  these  conflicting  schools  continued,  as  the  following  pages  will  show, 
until  the  present  federal  constitution  was  framed. 

Influence  of  want  of  admin         ^  3,  Yew  political  couditious  cau  bc  morc  pcril- 

istrative  experience.  j  1.  i. 

ous  than  that  of  the  long  exile  in  opposition  of  a 
great  political  party.  Extravagant  and  impracticable  theories  of  poli- 
tics are  apt  to  be  adopted  by  such  parties  ;  theories  they  could  not  main- 
tain in  power  with  credit  to  themselves  or  safety  to  the  public.  Such  was 
the  case  with  the  tories  in  England  during  the  reigns  of  George  I  and 
George  II.  Such  was,  in  a  large  measure,  the  case  with  the  whigs  in  Eng- 
land during  the  reigns  of  George  III  and  George  IV.  Such  also  was  the 
case  with  many  of  our  great  revolutionary  statesmen.  In  New  England, 
in  particular,  their  j)art  in  colonial  politics  was  limited  to  town  and  legis- 

*  See  infra,  $  209.  ' 

252 


CHAP.  I.]  REVOLUTIONARY    PARTIES.  [§  3. 

lative  meetings,  in  which  whatever  measures  they  adopted  were  liable  to 
be  defeated  by  an  executive  whom  they  detested,  but  wliom  only  a  revo- 
lution coald  unseat.  Such  also  had  been  the  political  experience  of  most 
of  the  liberal  statesmen  in  the  other  States.  They  were  leaders  of  per- 
manent opposition  ;  and  the  attitude  of  opposition  they  assumed  was  not 
merely  to  the  executive  ofGreat  Britain,  but  to  any  executive  system  what- 
soever. Chief  among  these  leaders  was  Samuel  Adams,  during  almost 
the  whole  Ke volution  a  delegate  from  Massachusetts,  and  at  all  times 
exercising  a  i)owerful  influence.  Pure  in  morals,  courageous,  perfectly 
single  in  his  aim,  with  great  logical  powers,  with  a  simplicity  of  purpose 
and  of  character  which  drew  to  him  the  veneration  of  all  who  knew  him, 
his  love  of  liberty  was  as  intense  as  his  hatred  of  despotism  and  his  dread 
of  any  agencies  from  which  despotism  might  be  evolved.  He  was  the 
representative  of  puritanism  in  its  highest  and  yet  iu  its  most  imprac- 
ticable type;  of  that  type  which  subordinates  iu  all  respects  public  con- 
science to  individual  conscience;  which  produces  great  heroes  of  revolt, 
but  which  can  not  produce  great  organizers  of  administration.  The  work 
of  Samuel  Adams  in  arousing  Massachusetts  to  revolution  was  of 
priceless  value.  In  his  old  age,  when  his  character  mellowed,  and  when 
he  accepted,  as  he  did,  the  federal  constitution  as  a  wise  compromise, 
construing  that  constitution  in  its  logical  sense,  he  again  was  of  im- 
mense public  service.  But  during  the  Eevolution,  through  his  dislike 
of  executive  authority  in  any  shape,  and  through  his  opposition  to  the 
adoption  of  scientific  principles  either  in  war,  in  diplomacy,  or  in  finance, 
he  came  more  than  once  near  wrecking  the  cause  which  he  would  gladly 
have  given  his  life  to  sustain.  John  Adams,  who  was  afterwards,  when 
peace  came,  to  take  another  line,  followed  during  the  war  his  great 
namesake,  whose  commanding  genius  few  within  its  immediate  spell, 
and  with  the  same  training,  could  resist.*  Closely  allied  to  Samuel 
Adams  in  principle  and  temper  was  Richard  Henry  Lee,  of  Virginia,  an 
inexorable  patriot  and  an  orator  of  great  elegance,  who,  with  his  family, 
comprising  men  of  much  political  activity,  formed  the  group  spoken  of 
in  the  following  correspondence  as  the  "  Lees  and  Adamses."  Other 
men  of  like  convictions  joined  them,  making  a  powerful  congressional 
party,  of  whom  we  shall  hear  much  hereafter.  They  were  devoted  to  the 
revolutionary  cause.  They  were  irreconcilably  hostile  to  Great  Britain. 
Their  zeal  w^as  of  enormous  value  in  arousing  public  enthusiasm.  But 
they  were  destructive  rather  than  constructive  iu  their  tendencies,  look- 
ing scornfully  at  all  traditional  systems  of  war,  of  diplomacy,  or  finance; 
associating  these  with  the  tyranny  under  which  they  had  suffered,  and 
which,  with  all  its  works,  they  had  vowed  not  only  to  overthrow  but  to 
crush.  They  were  almost  all  of  them  civilians,  and  it  is  remarkable  that 
no  military  man  of  eminence  adopted  their  principles.  But,  though 
civilians,  they  not  only  had  not  the  training  which  civilians  gain  in  ad- 

""  See  Infra,  U  Ah,  134. 

253 


^  4.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

miuistrative  life,  but  tliey  despised  and  spurued  the  principles  botli  in 
war,  diplomacy,  and  finance  which  that  training  developes. 

Constructive  statesmen.  §4.  Qn  the  Other  hand,  there  were  eminent 

men,  equally  earnest  in  the  revolutionary  cause,  to 
whom,  both  from  the  structure  of  their  characters  and  from  their  busi- 
ness or  administrative  experience,  the  idea  of  a  merely  destructive  rev- 
okitiou  was,  so  far  as  it  was  comprehensible,  thoroughly  repugnant. 
There  is  in  every  community  a  large  and  influential  class  of  men  who, 
to  adopt  Hooker's  distinction  in  his  great  argument  against  the  Puri- 
tans, incline,  in  settling  the  question  of  duty  in  any  particular  case, 
to  take  into  account  not  merely  their  own  personal  impulses,  no  matter 
how  high  may  be  the  inspiration  to  which  they  may  impute  those  im- 
pulses, but  the  traditions  and  the  conditions  and  the  tuitions  of  the 
society  in  which  they  live;  and  who,  if  in  political  life,  concern  them- 
selves, when  pulling  down  that  which  is  to  go,  with  plans  for  the 
erection  of  a  suitable  edifice  to  take  its  place.  Their  work,  even  when 
destroying,  is  constructive  ;  destruction  is  to  them  construction.  Then, 
aside  irom  this  difference  of  temper,  there  is  the  difference  of  experi- 
ence. Men  who  have  held  administrative  offices  are  likely  to  look  on 
the  forms  experience  has  adopted  for  such  offices  more  favorably  than 
those  whose  lives  have  been  spent  in  opposition.  Such  men  would,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  stand  together  in  antagonism  to  a  party  whose  aim 
is  simply  destructive,  and  which  seeks  to  reach  its  end  by  mere  popular 
force.  Such  men  also  would  not  merely  have  the  work  of  rebuilding 
always  before  them  when  pulling  down,  but  would  study  to  avail  th*^m- 
selves,  for  this  purpose  of  reconstruction,  of  whatever  instruments  his- 
tory, or  experience,  or  science  might  suggest. 

Washington.  §  4^.  First  iu  this  class  of  constructive  revolu- 

tionary statesmen  is  to  be  named  Washington, 
whose  genius  was  essentially  constructive  and  administrative,  and  who, 
as  an  officer  in  the  French  English  war  in  1755,  had  learned  to  regard 
public  aflairs  in  their  national  aspects,  and  to  view  war  as.  an  instru- 
ment of  construction  of  which  destruction  is  merely  the  preliminary  in- 
cident. Hence,  as  hereafter  will  be  more  fully  seen,*  the  object  he  had 
in  view  was  essentially  different  from  that  of  the  leaders  of  the  merely 
liberative  school  of  revolutionary  statesmen.  Samuel  Adams,  for  in- 
stance, the  strongest  and  most  heroic  of  these  leaders,  represented  the 
prophets  of  destruction  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  whose  spirit  he  was 
deeply  imbued.  Tyranny  must  be  torn  up  root  and  branch.  The  tyrant 
and  his  myrmidons  must  be  driven  irom  the  land  with  scorn.  Until  the 
evil  should  be  extirpated,  there  should  be  no  rest.  On  the  work  of  its 
extirpation  his  powers  were  concentrated  with  a  fiery  energy,  a  single- 
ness of  purpose,  an  utter  disregard  and  even  mortification  of  self,  which 
explain,  when  we  take  his  great  logical  powers  into  consideration,  the 

*  Infra,  $  209. 
254 


CHAP.  I.]       CONSTRUCTIVE    REVOLUTIONARY    STATESMEN.  [§  4a. 

devotiou  with  which  he  was  regarded  by  those  who  fell  under  his  sway. 
But  Washiugtoii,  if  he  looked  to  au  Old  Testament  prophet  for  guid- 
ance iu  the  momentous  work  on  which  he  was  engaged,  might  have 
found  an  exami)]e  in  that  leader  of  Israel  who,  iu  troublous  times,  when 
the  enemy  was  lurking  iu  every  shadow,  undertook  the  rebuilding  of 
the  Temple,  his  servants  fighting  as  they  built,  spade  and  ax  on  the 
one  side,  spear  and  sword  on  the  other.  Samuel  Adams'  whole  vision 
was  concentrated  on  the  hateful  tyranny  which  he  would  crush. 
After  the  crash  that  would  follow  he  savv  nothing.  What  he  looked 
forward  to  w\as  tumult  and  demolition.  Washington,  as  he  himself 
tells,  was  wistfully  gazing,  in  camp  and  even  in  battle,  on  that  "  goodly 
fabric,"  the  temple  of  liberty  and  order,  which  he  trusted  was  even  in 
the  war  growing  in  symmetry  and  strength.*  Samuel  Adams  fought 
to  annihilate  evil,  and  each  blow  was  to  him  precious  from  the  annihi- 
lation it  produced.  Washington  fought  that  he  might  build,  and  each 
blow,  he  devoutly  hoped,  directly  or  indirectly,  would  add  new  security 
to  the  beloved  temple  rising  before  his  eyes.t  Between  two  such  men 
there  was  necessarily  an  antagonism,  to  continue  at  least  while  the 
war  lasted.  Thej^  difi'ered  in  their  conception  not  merely  of  the  object 
of  war,  but  of  its  mode.  Washington  undoubtedly  held  war  to  be 
essential  to  enable  the  '^  goodly  fabric  "  of  liberty  and  order  to  be  built. 
But,  as  we  will  see,  this  was  to  be  a  war  not  of  guerrillas,  or  even  of 
militia  exclusively,  but  war  by  an  army  whose  nucleus  should  be  regu- 
lars, and  whose  operations  should  be  conducted  in  such  a  way  as,  by  the 
aid  of  time  and  natural  advantages,  to  counterbalance  the  superiority  of 
the  opposing  forces  in  discipline  and  in  armament.  They  differed  as 
to  the  attitude  to  be  maintained  to  foreign  nations.  In  the  defiant 
judgment  of  Samuel  Adams,  America  must  fight  the  revolutionary  bat- 
tle by  herself.  Britain  was  not  only  hateful,  but  corrui)t  to  the  core, 
and  would  succumb  if  exposed  to  America's  single  assaults  ;  France  was 
to  be  distrusted,  and  no  concessions  to  be  given  as  the  j^rice  of  her  aid. 
Washington,  on  the  other  hand,  believing  the  French  alliance  necessar^^ 
to  inflict  a  decisive  defeat  on  the  enemy,  gave  that  alliance  his  cordial 
and  full  support.  Had  Samuel  Adams  and  those  who  acted  with  him 
had  their  way,  France,  as  we  learn  from  the  correspondence  in  the 
French  archives,  would  have  been  forced  to  give  uj)  the  alliance  as 
impracticable.  To  Franklin  the  chief  credit  of  maintaining  the  friendly 
relations  of  the  allies,  so  far  as  dealing  with  the  French  court  was  con- 
cerned, was  due.  But  the  diplomacy  of  the  war,  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  was  in  Washington's  hands,  and  it  was  conducted  by  him 
with  a  wisdom  and  a  courteous  loyalty  to  our  allies,  to  which  the  French 
who  dealt  with  him  never  ceased  to  pay  tribute.f 

*  Infra,  §  210. 
t  See  infra,  ^  209. 

t  The  French  officers  of  all  ranks  joined  iu  the  same  opinion.     Thus  Dumas,  in  his 
Souvenirs  (vol.  i,  p.  44),  written  after  he  had  become  himself  distinguished  in  the 

255 


§  4e.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

Franklin.  §  4^.  l^ext  to  WasliiugtOD  ill  tliis  line  of  states- 

men is  to  be  considered  Fiaukliii,  whose  mind  was 
eminently  constructive,  and  who  for  years,  as  Postmaster-General  and 
colonial  agent  in  London,  possessed  the  greatest  experience  in  Ameri- 
can administration  of  any  man  then  living.  To  the  discussion  of 
Franklin's  diplomatic  career  a  future  chapter  will  be  assigned.* 

MoiTis.  ^  4(j,  Of  the  same  school  also  was  Eobert  Morris, 

who,  as  we  will  see,  was  placed,  when  the  advo- 
cates of  a  distinct  executive  system  finally  prevailed,  at  the  head  of  the 
finance  department,  and  who  for  years,  as  the  leading  merchant  of  the 
country,  was  singularly  familiar  with  the  laws  of  cosmopolitan  trade.t 

Livingston.  Jay.  §  4^.  ()f  the  characteristics  of  Livingston  and 

Jay,  who,  thongh  afterwards  diverging,  were  dur- 
ing the  Kevolutiou  to  be  ranked  in  the  same  school,  a  more  particular 
consideration  will  also  be  hereafter  given 4 

jeflperson.  §  4^.  Jcffersou  was  in  the  Congress  of  1776,  and 

afterwards  for  a  few  months  in  that  of  1783-'84. 
Hamilton  took  his  seat  in  November,  1782,  and  resigned  in  August, 
1783,  before  Jefferson  entered  on  duty.  Antagonistic  as  their  positions 
subsequently  became,  these  distinguished  men  may  both  be  regarded 
as  constructive  statesmen  during  the  Revolution,  though  here  comes  in 
the  subdivision  between  liberal  and  imperialistic  constructivism  to  be 
hereafter  noticed.  Both,  in  pulling  down  the  old  structure,  had  in  mind 
the  setting  up  a  new  structure  in  its  place;  and,  so  far  as  we  can  learn 
from  the  record  of  Hamilton's  brief  political  experience  during  the  Rev- 
olution, they  at  that  time  agreed  as  to  what  the  general  features  of  the 
new  system  should  be.  After  Jefferson  returned  from  Europe  and  became 
Secretary  of  State,  and  subsequently  when  President,  he  sought,  while 
striving  to  build  up  a  polity  which  should  be  in  all  matters  necessarily 
governmental,  firm,  and  vigorous,  to  leave  to  individual  enterprise  what- 
ever such  enterprise  could  best  effect.  To  the  commanding  genius  of  Ham- 
great  European  wars,  speaks  of  Wasbingtou  as  the  "  liero  of  liberty,"  and  says,  after 
an  interview,  "his  dignified  address,  the  simplicity  of  his  manners,  and  mild  grav- 
ity surpassed  our  expectation  and  won  every  heart."  Count  William  de  Deux-Ponta, 
who  was  by  no  means  disposed  to  put  too  high  an  estimate  on  American  men  and 
manners,  thus  speaks  of  Washington's  attitude  on  receiving  the  news  of  De  Grasse's 
arrival:  ''I  have  been  equally  surprised  and  touched  at  the  true  and  pure  joy  of 
General  Washington.  Of  a  natural  coldness  and  of  a  serious  and  nonle  approach, 
which  in  him  is  only  true  dignity,  and  which  adorns  so  well  the  chief  of  a  whole 
nation,  his  features,  his  physiognomy,  his  deportment— all  were  changed  in  an  instant. 
He  put  aside  his  character  as  arbiter  of  North  America,  and  contented  himself  for 
the  moment  with  that  of  the  citizen,  happy  at  the  good  fortune  of  bis  country." 
(Deux-Ponts'  Campaign  in  America,  by  Green,  126.)  Equally  strong  is  the  admira- 
tion expressed  by  Chastellux.     (Voyages,  etc.,  118.) 

*  See  fully  as  to  Franklin,  infra,  $  112  j^. 

Unfra,  ^  183. 

i  Infra,  ^  155,  180. 

256 


CHAP.  I.]  JEFFERSON.  [§  4e. 

iltoii  the  province  of  government,  as  he  viewed  it  after  the  Kevolution, 
was  to  direct  in  all  matters  by  which  the  body-politic  could  be  affected; 
and,  that  this  should  be  done  with  due  dignity  and  constancy,  govern- 
ment was  to  be  made  powerful  and  splendid,  and  removed  as  far  as  pos- 
sible from  temporary  popular  agitation.  Hence  it  was  that  these  two  em- 
inent men  wore  afterwards  in  Washington's  cabinet  pitted  against  each 
other  like  "  lighting  cocks,'^  and  that  from  that  time  Hamilton  looked 
on  Jeli'erson  as  a  philosophic  leveler,  to  whom  it  would  be  unsafe  to  com- 
mit the  management  of  public  affairs.  But  this  antagonism  was  not 
observable  during  the  Revolution.  Against  Jefferson  no  charge  could 
then  or  afterwards  be  more  unwarranted  than  that  he  was  a  leveler. 
He  was  unquestionably  as  devoted  a  revolutionist  as  was  Richard 
Henry  Lee  or  Samuel  Adams,  but  he  had,  in  addition  to  this  devotion, 
constructive  administrative  powers  of  singular  delicacy  as  well  as  of 
large  comprehensiveness.  He  had  also  a  keen  appreciation  of  the 
need  of  adaptation  of  government  to  era  and  people.  His  ideal  was 
not  the  British  political  constitution  as  it  then  was,  many  of  whose  lim- 
itations, not  as  yet  abrogated,  were  the  products  of  feudal  class  restric- 
tion or  of  Tudor  arbitrariness.  He  cherished,  it  is  true,  as  essential 
safeguards  of  liberty,  trial  by  jury  and  revision  by  habeas  corpus^  and 
the  separation  of  executive  and  judicial  functions  from  legislative.  But, 
adopting  these  primary  conditions,  and  reserving  to  the  State,  authority 
in  all  matters  belonging  to  it,  the  political  system  which  the  Revolu- 
tion, in  his  judgment,  was  to  evolve,  was  to  respond  in  its  simplicity  and 
in  its  elasticity  to  the  particular  wants  and  conscience  of  the  United 
States  as  a  nation.  His  work  in  this  relation  was  complex,  relating  to 
State  as  well  as  to  federal  economy.  In  1776  he  drafted  a  constitution 
for  Virginia,  which  was  the  first  adaptation  of  revolutionary  conditions 
to  the  organic  law  of  that  State, and  which  ever  since  has  been  the  basis 
of  Virginia  legislation.  In  the  same  year  he  reported  the  civil  code, 
which  abolished  primogeniture  and  entails,  proposed  a  humane  penal 
system,  and  provided  for  liberal  public  education  and  for  generous  natu- 
ralization. When  in  Congress,  in  17^83-'84,  he  threw  his  influence  in  favor 
of  Franklin's  course  in  the  peace  negotiations  and  of  that  of  Morris  in 
the  management  of  the  treasury,  though  dissenting  from  Morris,  he  rec- 
ommended the  system  of  coinage  that  now  exists.  Of  the  ordinances 
for  the  government  of  the  Northwestern  Territory,  the  draft  in  his  hand- 
writing, is  now,  almost  in  the  shape  in  which  it  finally  passed,  in  the 
Department  of  State,  and  it  remains  the  basis  of  our  territorial  legis- 
lation. As  chairman  of  the  committee  on  foreign  relations  he  drafted 
instructions  for  the  formation  of  commercial  treaties  based  on  reciproc- 
ity, which  he  urged  as  the  true  principle  of  commerce. 

His  desire  for  the  formation  of  a  strong  national  government  is  shown 
by  many  incidents.    He  supported,  against  the  Lees  and  against  the  Mas- 
sachusetts delegation,  the  establishment  of  the  Departments  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  of  War,  and  of  Finance.     He  united  with  Madison  against  the 
17  WH  257 


§  4/]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

Lees  ill  sustaining  a  measure  in  the  Virginia  legislature  giving  the  power 
of  impost  taxation  to  Congress.  Plis  pride  was  in  the  national  govern- 
ment, to  which  he  desired  to  draw  the  strongest  men.  ''I  see,"  he  said 
to  Madison  on  February  20, 1784,  "  the  best  eliects  produced  by  sending 
our  young  statesmen  here  (to  Cougress).  They  see  the  affairs  of  the 
Confederacy  from  a  high  ground  ;  they  learn  the  hnportaiice  of  the  Union^ 
and  befriend  federal  measures  tvhen  they  return.  Those  ivho  never  come 
here  see  our  affairs  insulated.,  pursue  a  system  of  jealousy  and  self-interest., 
and  distract  the  TJ^iion  as  much  as  they  can.''''  And  on  April  25,  1784,  in 
another  letter  to  Madison,  he  returned  to  the  same  topic.  '•  It  (Congress) 
is  a  good  school  for  our  young  statesmen.  It  gives  them  impressions 
frieiudy  to  the  federal  government  instead  of  those  adverse,  which  too  often 
take  place  in  persons  confined  to  the  politics  of  one  State.''''*  As  to  foreign 
aff'airs,  his  policy,  according  to  Luzerne,  was  one  of  equipoise,  holding 
that  Congress  "ought  to,  as  far  as  it  can,  direct  towards  us  (France) 
the  affection  of  the  people,  in  order  to  balance  the  inclination  of  the  nu- 
merous causes  ^Yhich  carry  them  continuously  to  England.  Re  has,  not- 
withstanding these  principles,  shoivn  himself  to  he  the  protector  and  the 
support  of  the  refugees.'''']  And  he  strenuously  maintained  the  duty  and 
necessit^^  of  a  strict  adhesion  to  the  treaty  of  alliance. 

Hamilton.  §  4^.  Hamilton's  congressional  career,  as  we  have  seen, 

was  brief,  but  his  course  during  this  career  exhibited  administrative 
genius  in  its  best  sense;  that  genius  which — avoiding  on  the  one  side  the 
extreme  of  the  mere  revolutionist,  hurling  into  action  national  enthusi- 
asm without  organization,  and  on  the  other  side  the  extreme  of  the  tra- 
ditiouist,  relying  on  organization  without  an  appeal  to  national  enthu- 
siasm— seeks  to  concentrate  and  utilize  the  resources  of  the  country  by 
applying  to  them  the  organization  most  fitted  for  their  development. 
He  saw  that  for  this  purpose  a  permanent  and  strong  executive  was 
necessary!  as  a  department  co  ordinate  with  the  legislative;  and  while 
this  was  not  at  the  time  attainable,  he  did  his  best  to  strengthen  the 
hands  of  the  commander-in-chief  and  of  the  heads  of  the  departments 
of  finance  and  of  foreign  affairs.  To  Morris  he  was  of  immense  service, 
supporting  him  both  in  the  press  and  in  Congress;  aiding  him  by  con- 
stant suggestions,  which,  while  modestly  made,  bore  the  stamp  of  the 
consummate  abilities  of  the  young  statesmen  from  whom  they  sprang. 
Availing  himself  of  his  experience  at  the  head  of  the  New  York  board 
of  taxation,  he  urged  with  great  power  measures  which  would  be  most 
likely  to  bring  out  an  adequate  public  revenue.  We  find  the  same  wis- 
dom and  loyalty  to  duty  in  his  course  as  to  foreign  affairs.  He  sup- 
ported Livingston  and  Madison  in  bringing  to  an  end  the  indecorous 
and  sterile  mission  at  St.  Petersburg,  where  Dana,  under  a  congressional 

*  I  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  345,  359. 

t  I  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Conslitution,  .%2. 

X  See  Hamilton  to  Morris,  Apr.  30,  1780,  1  Hamilton's  Works,  223. 

258 


CHAP.  I.]  HAMILTON.  [§  4/ 

vote  urged  by  John  and  Samuel  Adams,  had  been  remaining  unrcceived 
for  two  years,  putting  himself  and  his  country  in  the  false  position  of 
tame  submission  to  repulses  which  increased  in  rudeness  as  his  applica- 
tions to  be  received  increased  in  pertinacity.*  llamilton  initiated,  also, 
the  right  line  on  the  subject  of  the  armed  neutrality,  by  an  amendment 
offered  by  him  instructing  the  commissioners,  ^'in  case  they  shouhl  com- 
prise in  the  definitive  treaty  any  stipulations  amounting  to  a  recog. 
nition  of  the  rights  of  neutral  nations,  to  avoid  accompanying  them  by 
any  engagements  which  shall  oblige  the  contracting  i)arties  to  support 
these  stipidations  by  arms;"  and  he  concurred  in  a  report  on  the  same 
question  that,  "as  the  primary  object  of  the  proposed  accession  to  the 
neutral  confederacy  no  longer  can  operate,  and  as  the  true  interests  of 
these  States  require  that  they  should  be  as  little  as  jyossible  entangled  in  the 
politics  and  controversies  of  European  nations,^^  it  was  not  expedient  that 
Dana's  powers  should  be  continued. t  But  more  [)aiticularly  do  we  rec- 
ognize this  practical  administrative  genius  in  his  views  of  our  duty  under 
our  treaty  stipulations  to  France.  His  recognition  of  our  obligations  to 
and  our  dependence  on  France  had  been,  before  the  treaty  arrived,  pe- 
culiarly strong. 
To  Noailles,  then  in  France^  he  wrote  in  1782  (the  day  not  being  given)  :J 

"Tbo  activity  of  the  next  campaign  must  absolutely  depend,  on  eflfectual  succor 
from  France." 

To  La  Fayette,  on  November  2,  1782,  he  wrote : 

''  These  States  are  in  no  humor  for  continuing  exertions.  If  the  war  lasts,  it- must 
he  carried  on  by  external  succor."^ 

On  March  17,  1783,  the  treaty  being  then  before  him,  he  wrote  to 
Washington  :|| 

'^I  am  really  appreliensire,  if  peace  does  not  take  place,  that  the  negotiations  will  tend  to 
sow  distrust  among  the  allies  and  tveaJceii  the  force  of  the  common  league.  We  have,  I 
fear,  men  among  ns,  and  men  in  trust,  wlio  have  a  baukering  after  British  connec- 
tion. We  have  others  whoso  conlidence  in  France  savors  of  credulity.  The  intrigues 
of  the  former  and  tlie  incautiousness  of  tbe  latter  may  be  both,  though  iu  different 
degrees,  iujurious  to  the  American  interests,  and  make  it  difficult  for  prudent  men  to 
steer  a  proper  course." 

When  the  peace  preliminaries  of  1782  came  before  Congress,  Hamil- 
ton, on  March  18,  1783,  according  to  Madison's  report,^  ^'admitted  it  as 
not  inaprobable  that  it  had  been  the  policy  of  France  to  procrastinate 
the  definite  acknowledgment  of  our  independence  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain,  in  order  to  keep  us  more  knit  to  herself,  and  until  her  own  in- 
terests could  be  negotiated.     The  arguments,  however,"  he  continued, 

*  See  infra,  $  19. 

tTlie  committee  wlio  made  this  report  were  Madison,  Ellsworth,  and  Hamilton. 
It  is  to  Madison  tbat  its  style  is  probably  due;  and,  if  so,  it  is  to  him  that  the  word 
''entaugled"  in  this  connection  is  to  be  imputed. 

t  8  L*dge's  Hamiltou,  86. 

^S  Id.,  90. 

II  Infra,  under  above  date;  8  Lodge's  Hamiltou,  105. 

H  1  Madison's  Papers,  394,  infra,  under  date  of  Mar.  18,  1783. 

259 


^  4/]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

"urged  by  our  miuisters  (Jay  and  Adams)  on  this  subject,  although 
strong,  were  not  conclusive,  as  it  was  not  certain  that  this  policy,  and 
not  a  desire  of  excluding  obstacles  to  peace,  had  produced  the  opposition 
of  the  French  court  to  our  demands.  Caution  and  vigilance,  he  thought, 
werejustified  by  the  appearance,  and  that  alone.  But  compare  this 
l)olic3^  with  that  of  Great  Britain;  survey  the  past  cruelty  and  present 
duplicity  of  her  councils;  behold  her  watching  every  occasion  and 
trying  every  project  for  dissolving  the  honorable  ties  v/hich  bind  the 
United  States  to  their  ally,  and  then  say  on  which  side  our  resentments 
and  jealousies  ought  to  lie.  With  respect  to  the  instructions  submit- 
ting our  ministers  to  the  advice  of  France,  he  had  disapproved  it 
uniformly  since  it  had  come  to  his  knowledge,  hut  he  had  always  judged 
it  improper  to  repeal  it.  Re  disapproved  highly  of  the  conduct  of  our  min- 
isters in  not  showing  the  preliminary  articles  to  our  ally  before  they  signed 
theni^  and  still  more  so  of  their  agreeing  to  the  separate  article.  This  cond  net 
gave  an  advantage  to  the  enemy,  which  they  would  not  fail  to  improve 
for  the  purpose  of  inspiring  France  with  indignation  and  distrust  of  the 
United  States.  *  *  *  He  observed  that  our  ministers  were  divided 
(Franklin  against  Jay  and  Adams) ''  as  to  the  policy  of  the  court  of  France, 
but  that  they  were  all  agreed  in  the  necessity  of  being  on  the  watch 
against  Great  Britain.  *  *  *  He  observed,  particularly  with  respect  to 
Mr.  Jay,  that  although  he  was  a  man  of  profound  sagacity  and  pure  integ- 
rity, yet  he  was  of  a  suspicious  temper,  and  that  this  trait  might  ex- 
plain the  extraordinary  jealousies  which  he  professed.  He  finally  pro- 
posed that  the  ministers  should  be  commended  and  the  separate  article 
be  communicated^^''  thereby  complying  with  the  engagements  previously 
made  to  France.  It  was  in  sympathy  with  these  views  and  in  exten- 
sion of  the  policy  of  close  alliance  with  France  that,  on  May  2,  1783,  he 
offered  and  carried  a  resolution  which,  after  appealing  in  energetic 
language  to  the  States  to  forward  the  collection  of  taxes  in  order  to 
pay  off  the  army,  proceeded  as  follows  : 

Jiesoh'ed,  That,  as  an  additional  means  of  accomplishing  the  same  end,  a  further 
application  be  immediately  made  to  liis  most  Christian  majesty  to  induce  him  to  add 
three  millions  of  livres  to  the  six  millions  already  granted,  in  part  of  the  loan  of  four 
millions  of  dollars  requested  by  the  resolution  of  the  14th  day  of  September,  17ri2 ; 
and  that  his  said  majesty  might  be  informed  that  Congress  will  consider  his  compli- 
ance in  this  instance  as  a  new  and  valuable  proof  of  his  friendship  peculiarly  inleresiing 
in  the  present  conjuncture  of  the  affairs  of  ike  United  Statea,  and  will  apply  a  part  of  the 
requisitions  now  subsisting  upon  the  several  States  to  the  repayment  of  the  said  three 
millions. 

Ko  statesman  ever  had  a  more  delicate  sense  of  honor  than  Hamil- 
ton, or  was  more  intrepid  in  insisting  on  the  performance  of  engage- 
ments which  honor  required  to  be  performed.  He  knew  that  we  were 
engaged  to  France  not  to  take  action  as  to  ])eace  without  her  concur- 
rence; he  viewed  the  aid  she  rendered  us  as  the  price  she  paid  us  for 
this  stipulation  ;  and,  in  joining  in  a  new  appeal  to  her  for  aid,  he  rec- 
ognized the  continuing  eff'ect  of  this  engc>gement  of  mutual  confidence 

260 


CHAP.  l]  HAMILTON  :    MADISON.  [§  4^. 

and  support.  To  bis  cbivalric  temper,  tbe  idea  of  applying  to  France 
for  furtber  aid,  we  intending  at  tbe  time  to  break  our  engagements  to 
ber,  would  Iiave  been  intolerable.  Hence  be  united  witb  Wasbington, 
witb  Jefferson,  witb  Morris,  and  witb  Madison  in  tbe  position  tbat  tbe 
majority  of  our  negotiators  in  Paris  did  wrong  in  concealing  from  Ver- 
gennes  tbe  result  of  tbeir  negotiations,  and  tbat  to  France  entire  frank- 
ness in  negotiation  was  due. 

Madison.  §  4^,  Madisoii  was  in  Congress  during  tbe  wbole  of  Ham- 

ilton's term  of  service,  and  on  almost  every  question  tbat 
arose  tbey  stood  togetber.  Togetber  tbey  resisted  tbat  energetic  and 
adroit  opposition  wbicb  reared  itself  against  tbe  military  system  of  Wasb- 
ington, as  well  as  against  tbe  di])lomatic  system  of  Franklin  and  of  Liv- 
ingston, and  tbe  financial  system  of  Morris.  It  is  true  tbat  afterwards 
Madison  and  Hamilton  separated  widely  in  tbeir  views.  Hamilton's 
early  training  was  in  tbe  West  Indies,  wbere  tbe  only  autbority  to 
appeal  to  was  executive,  and  wbere  tbe  action  of  sucb  autbority,  to  be 
effective,  bad  to  be  quick  and  despotic.  Madison  was  born  in  a  com- 
munity in  wbicb  executive  government  was  regarded  witb  an  antag- 
onism wbicb,  in  itself  often  just,  long  years  of  opposition  bad  intensi- 
fied, and  bad  been  educated  in  Princeton  College,  tbe  beadquarters  of 
advanced  wbigism,  wbose  political  pbilosopby  was  tbat  of  Locke,  and 
wbose  political  beroes  were  Hampden,  William  Eussell,  and  Somers. 
Madison's  temper  also  was  consultative;  be  was  peculiarly  fitted  for 
tbe  council  cbamber  and  tbe  legislature,  Hamilton's  temper,  on  tbe 
otber  band,  was  executive,*  swift  in  deciding,  imperious  in  tbe  imme- 
diate enforcement  of  wbat  be  decided.  It  was  in  relation  to  tbe  Frencb 
revolution  and  to  tbe  aggressions  of  tbe  Frencb  revolutionary  autbor- 
ities  tbat  tbeir  divergence  became  most  marked.  Madison  would 
bave  waited  till  Franco  bad  an  opportunity  of  rigbting  berself ;  and  to 
bis  calm  mind  tbe  violence  of  tbe  revolutionists  could  be,  at  least  to 
some  extent,  overlooked  wben  tbe  great  cause  of  national  emancipation 
tbey  were  struggling  for  was  kept  in  mind.  Hamilton,  on  tbe  otber 
band,  contrasted  tbe  frenzy  and  uproar  of  tbe  Revolution  witb  tbe 
splendor  and  order  of  tbe  institutions  it  bad  overtbrown,  and  be  looked 
on  it  as  a  monster,  wbose  insults  to  us  we  sbould  promptly  punisb.  In 
two  great  lines  of  national  duty,  bowever,  tbese  statesoien  concurred ; 
tbey  beld  tbat  tbe  Mississippi  Valley  was  to  be  secured  for  tbe  United 
States,  and  tbe  terms  of  tbe  Frencb  alliance  were  to  be  bonorably  kept. 
It  is  a  serious  question  wbetber,  in  tbe  great  crisis  of  1782-'83,  wben 
in  tbe  expectation  of  peace,  tbe  people,  wearied  witb  tbe  exertions  of 
war,  seemed  in  danger  of  becoming  indifferent  to  tbe  maintenance  of 
public  credit  and  public  engagements  at  borne  and  abroad,  tbe  country 
would  not  bave  sustained  injuries  almost  irreparable  bad  it  not  been 
for  tbe  admirable  sense,  tbe  quiet  courage,  and  tbe  unsullied  integrity 

*  See  infra,  ^  209/. 

261 


§  47^.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

wliich  Madison  brought  to  the  public  service  at  a  time  when  Congress 
had  so  far  degenerated  as  to  peculiarly  subject  it  to  those  disorganizing 
influences  which  are  elsewhere  examined  in  detail.* 

John  Adams.  §  4//.  elohu  Adams'  political  career  is  broken,  iu  refer- 

ence to  the  question  immediately  before  us,  iuto  two 
very  distinct  sectious.  Duriug  hiR>  congressional  term  he  was,  as  has 
been  said,  under  the  influence  of  his  great  namesake  and  kinsman, 
Samuel  Adams,  whose  lofty  patriotism,  stern  ])uritanic  republicanism, 
and  austere  unselfishness,  combined  with  untiring  energy  and  singular 
clearness  and  force  of  expression,  gave  him  immense  influence  over 
those  who  fell  within  his  range  in  the  pursuit  of  a  common  object.  To 
Samuel  Adams,  and  to  those  who  sustained  him,  the  one  object  was  the 
overthrow  of  British  swdy —delen da  est  Carthago — and  all  other  objects 
were  put  aside.  The  administrative  edifice  that  existed  when  the  Eevo- 
lution  came  was  to  be  torn  down,  and  this  by  popular  storm;  but  as  to 
an  edifice  to  take  its  place,  there  were  no  plans.  In  fact,  for  that  which 
was  proposed  by  this  band  of  patriots  no  particular  architectural  skill 
would  be  required.  Congress,  in  which  they  took  a  conspicuous  part, 
and  in  which  on  some  momentcus  occasions  their  influence  was  supreme, 
was  then,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  the  sole  governing  power  of  the 
reiiublic,  and  as  such  i^t  could  well  remain,  in  their  judgment,  forever. 
If  any  executive  action  were  required,  this  could  be  done  by  commit- 
tees, of  which  they  were  often  the  leading  members;  and  thus  that  con- 
gressional organization,  which  was  the  mere  scaffolding  under  which  a 
permanent  and  symmetrical  structure  was  to  rise,  they  treated  as  if  it 
were  a  permanent  structure  complete  in  itself.  A  distinct  executive 
department  they  looked  on  with  anger  and  dread,  as  not  merely  involv- 
ing their  loss  of  power,  but  as  a  departure  from  primitive  republican 
symplicity,  and  as  a  step  towards  that  monarchical  idea  which  they  had 
warred  against  with  such  fiery  zeal.  Hence  may  be  explained  the 
vehemence  and  bitterness  with  which  they  resisted  every  attempt  to 
abate  the  prerogatives  of  Congress  by  the  establishment  of  executive 
boards,  and  the  persistence  with  whicli  they  sought  to  subordinate  to 

""  See  infra,  §  209 #. 

lb  can  uot  be  denied  tliat,  after  1779,  Congress  greatly  deteriorated  in  tone. 
The  tlieory  oftliisis  thus  stated  by  Jay,  in  writing,  on  April  21,  1799,  when  Presi- 
dent of  Congress,  to  Washington  (2  Sparlis'  Letters  to  Washington,  269):  "Seasons 
of  general  heat,  tumult,  and  fermentation  favor  the  production  and  growth  of  some 
great  virtues  and  of  many  great  and  little  vices."  It  has  always  been  so  in  revolu- 
tionary periods,  and  it  was  naturally  so  with  Congress  after  the  first  ardor  of  the 
Eevolution  passed  away.  Its  sessions  were,  in  most  important  matters,  in  secret; 
the  eminent  men  who  lirst  took  part  iu  it,  and  who  were  called  to  other  spheres,  were 
in  some  cases  succeeded  by  political  intriguers  of  a  low  tone  or  by  speculators;  and 
it  was  in  a  large  sense  autocratic,  being  removed,  from  the  want  of  an  independent 
X^ress,  from  yvopular  criticism.  To  this  may  be  traced  the  charges  of  selfish  intrigue 
and  of  corruption  made  against  its  members;  charges  no  doubt  greatly  exaggerated, 
yet  based  at  least  to  some  extent  on  fact. 

262 


CHAP.  I.]        CONSTRUCTIVE  STATESMANSHIP.  [§  5. 

themselves,  or  to  committees  of  tlieir  own  choosing^,  the  army,  tlie 
treasury,  and  the  diplomatic  corps.  To  this  policy  also  may  be  attributed 
their  denunciation  of  tliose  systems  of  permanent  finance,  of  military 
preparation  and  action,  and  of  diplomacy  which  in  their  several  splieres 
Washington,  Franklin,  Livingston,  and  Morris  had  sought  to  carry  out. 
It  was  with  those  holding  these  views  that  John  Adams,  as  we  will  leain 
from  the  following  correspondence,  was  during  the  devolution  mainly  in 
sympathy.  When,  however,  after  the  establishment  of  peace,  he  made 
his  appearance  at  London  as  American  envoy,  he  entered  on  a  new  era, 
with  conceptions  of  politics  varying  greatly  from  those  he  had  accepted 
during  the  Revolution.*  It  is,  however,  only  with  his  revolutionary  pol- 
itics that  these  pages  are  concerned.  In  this  section  we  liave  noticed 
those  politics  in  their  municipal  relation.  Hereafter  his  diplomatic 
course  will  be  distinctively  considered.! 

Objection  of  "  Fabianism "  to        ^5,  jfc  ^as  uatural  that  mcu  of  ardor  and 

constructivos.  ^  ,  ,  i       . 

earnestness,  devoted  to  the  revolutionary  cause, 
inexperienced  in  administration,  not  familiar  practically  either  with 
military  or  financial  or  diplomatic  science,  confident  in  the  potency  of 
"  militia"  power,  whether  in  war  or  finance  or  diplomacy,  should  chafe 
at  tlie  "  Fabian  "  delay  which  the  application  of  science  and  the  study  of 
environments  would  cause  in  each  of  these  spheres.     The  antagonism 

*  This  change  in  political  views  is  dwelt  on  in  a  letter  hereafter  noticed  {Infra,  ^  11), 
in  which  Hamilton,  writing  to  Sedgwick,  on  October  9,  1788,  inquired  whether,  as  it 
was  suggested  that  Adams  "  is  unfriendly  in  bis  sentiments  to  General  Washington," 
and  as  ''the  Lees  and  Adamses  have  been  in  the  habit  of  uniting,"  it  might  hapi»en, 
on  Richard  H.  Lee  going  to  the  Senate  and  Adams  being  elected  Vice-President,  that 
there  might  spring  up  a  ''cabal  very  embarrassing  to  the  executive,  and  of  course  to 
the  administration  of  the  government"  (8  Lodge's  Hamilton,  198).  Sedgwick,  on 
October  16,  replied : 

"Mr.  Adams  was  formerly  infimtehj  more  democratical  than  at  lyresent,  and  possessing 
that  jealousy  which  always  accompanied  such  a  character,  he  was  averse  to  repose 
such  unlimited  confidence  in  the  commander-in-cbief  as  then  was  the  disposition  of 
Congress.  *  *  *  His  writings  show  that  he  deserves  the  confidence  of  those  who 
wish  energy  in  government ;  for  although  these  writings  are  too  tedious  and  un pheas- 
ant in  perusal,  yet  they  are  evidently  the  result  of  deep  reflection,  and,  as  they 
encounter  popular  prejudices,  are  an  evidence  of  an  erect  and  independent  spirit." 
(1  Hamilton's  Works,  by  his  son,  482.) 

To  this  Hamilton,  on  November  9, 1788,  after  saying  in  reply  that  he  had  concluded 
to  support  Adams,  adds  : 

*'  I  had  but  one  scruple,  but  after  mature  consideration  I  have  relinquished  it.  Mr. 
A.,  to  a  sound  understanding,  has  always  appeared  to  me  to  add  an  ardent  love  for 
the  public  good  ;  and,  as  his  further  knowledge  of  the  world  seems  to  have  corrected 
those  jealousies  which  he  is  represented  to  have  once  been  influenced  by,  I  trust 
nothing  of  the  kind  suggested  in  my  former  letter  will  disturb  the  harmony  of  the 
administration  ."     (8  Lodge's  Hamilton,  20-3.) 

As  to  Adams'  diplomatic  views,  see  infra,  ^  KM. 

\  Infra,  ^  129  #. 

263 


<^^  6,  7.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I, 

to  Wasliiugtou,  to  Fraiikliu,  to  Morris,  to  Livingston  thus  generated 
will  be  hereafter  specifically  considered,  since  with  it  a  large  part  of  the 
following  correspondence  is  concerned. 

^','f.f'^'^rf?.?^''!^^''.'"^'''         §  C-  ^^  the  other  hand,  men  of  administrative 

that  mere  lorce  is  overcome  •'  ' 

by  force  aud  8kiii,  and  that    ability,  convinccd  that  in  war,  in  finance,  and  in 

the  object  of  the  Kevolutioii  ^'  '  ' 

was  to  build  up.  diplomacy  they  should  move  in  subordination  to 

science  as  applied  to  existing  conditions,  natu- 
rally found  themselves  incapable  of  appreciating  the  position  that  force 
can  be  permanently  successful  when  not  moving  in  such  subordina- 
tion. You  can  not  dash  ahead  in  a  straight  line  through  a  thronged 
city — so  Dr.  Johnson  illustrated  the  position  they  took — without  being 
arrested  by  a  crowd  of  passengers  or  by  a  turn  in  the  street;  and 
dashing  ahead  in  the  same  way  in  war  or  finance  or  diplomacy,  without 
allowing  for  and  guarding  against  obstacles,  is  equally  reckless  and 
perilous.  The  fortifications  of  a  skillful  enemy,  availing  himself  of 
the  arts  of  war — so  it  was  argued — can  not  be  demolished  by  the  rush  of 
an  enthusiastic  mob ;  nor  can  any  army,  capable  of  meeting  such  an 
enemy,  be  kept  up  without  proper  pay  and  permanent  enlistments. 
Public  credit  can  not  be  maintained  by  the  unbounded  issue  of  irre- 
deemable paper  money.  The  alliance  of  foreign  neutrals  can  not  bo 
secured  by  a  belligerent  who  neither  knows  how  to  fight,  nor  how  to 
address  such  neutrals  excei^t  in  terms  of  rough  demand  for  money.  And 
even  if  success  could  be  won  under  such  an  untutored  system,  ho  gov- 
ernment could  succeed  in  the  place  of  that  thrown  down,  except  by  the 
exercise  of  political  science  and  administrative  skill. 

Corrupting  influences  of  Eu-        §  7,  ^Tg  ^au  not  dulv  cstimatc  the  charactcr  of 

ropeau  politics.  ■*  *^ 

our  revolutionary  leaders  without  taking  into 
consideration  the  tone  of  the  politics  of  the  day.  The  enormous 
amounts  of  money  paid  at  this  period  by  the  British  ministry  for  secret 
diplomatic  services  has  been  frequently  commented  on  by  British  his- 
torians. Vergennes  speaks  of  innumerable  spies  employed  in  France 
by  Lord  Stormont,  British  minister  at  Paris,  and  the  correspondence 
of  George  III  with  Lord  North  shows  to  how  lavish  an  extent  this 
bribery  was  applied  to  the  purchase  of  American  treason.  In  the 
first  volume  of  the  correspondence  of  the  first  Earl  of  Malmesbury  we 
find  in  what  way  at  this  very  period  corrupt  influences  in  diplomacy 
were  not  only  lavishly  applied,  but  unblushingly  recorded,  by  those 
engaged  in  the  British  service.  Thus  this  eminent  diplomatist,  when,  as 
Sir  James  Harris,  British  minister  at  St.  Petersbug,  thus  writes  of  his 
methods  of  reaching  Russian  statesmen  : 

''The  present  disposition  and  conduct  of  this  court  were  so  niucli  beyond  tlie  reach 
of  my  penetration,  and  yet  so  highly  necessary  to  be  fathomed,  that  I  was  determined 
to  apply,  in  consequence  of  the  permission  I  had  received  from  your  lordship  (Lord 
Stormont),  to  the  only  person  wliom  Prijico  Potemkin  admits  to  his  entire  confidence, 

264 


CHAP.  I.]  FOREIGN    CORRUPTION.  [§  7. 

and  without  whom  he  can  do  nothing.  I  nieutiouod  him  in  my  last  dispatches,  and 
as  I  know  him,  with  every  appearance  of  honesty,  to  be  very  venal,  used  little  deli- 
cacy in  addressing  him.  *  *  *  Our  bargain  was  soon  struck  by  telling  him  I  did 
not  want  assistance,  but  information  ;  assuring  him  that,  from  what  I  already  know, 
I  should  easily  perceive  whether  ho  meant  to  deceive  me,  and  that  if  ho  dealt  fairly 
and  iionestly  by  me  he  might  be  assured  of  future  marks  of  liberality." 

Harris  then  proceeds  to  specify  the  answers,  unquestionably  very 
frank  and  full,  which  he  thus  obtained.* 

Bift  a  still  more  amazing  engine  of  corruption  was  resorted  to  by  this 
astute  politician.  The  Empress  Catharine  was  at  the  time  absorbed  by 
the  ambition  of  being  mediator  in  the  struggle  by  which  Europe,  as 
well  as  America,  were  then  convulsed.  If  this  position  had  been  con- 
ceded to  her  by  the  leading  European  belligerents  (for  America,  being 
in  her  view  without  any  recognized  political  existence,  she  did  not  even 
address),  she  would  not  have  been,  it  is  true,  arbitrator,  but  she  would 
have  been  able  to  exercise  great  influence  on  the  course  of  the  war. 
Her  entire  Impartiality  in  the  exercise  of  the  proposed  mediation,  there- 
fore, was  assumed  on  both  sides.  Yet,  while  such  was  the  case,  Bir 
James  Harris,  under  instructions  from  his  government,  offered  to  her 
the  island  of  Minorca  in  case  she  would,  when  acting  as  mediator,  make 
it  a  condition  that  France  should  withdraw  all  her  troops  from  Amer- 
ica. The  empress  had  the  matter  under  advisement,  when,  as  a  pro. 
found  secret,  she  disclosed  the  oli'er  to  the  emperor  of  Germany  (Joseph), 
her  intended  co-mediator.  Joseph  naturally  revolted  at  such  a  bargain, 
and  the  scheme  exploded.  But  it  signally  illustrates  the  position  that 
Britain  was  ready  to  resort  to  any  expedient,  no  matter  how  unscrupu- 
lous, to  subjugate  the  United  States.t 

Of  tlie  sums  lavislied  in  the  corruption  of  American  subordinates 
notice  will  be  hereafter  taken,|  and  the  question  as  to  Deane's  case  will 
be  distinctively  considered.  ||  The  only  case  of  the  actual  purchase  of 
an  American  officer  is  that  of  Arnold  ;  |[  the  apostacy  of  Charles  Lee, 
base  as  it  was,  being  a  revival  of  his  British  allegiance,  with  no  proof 
of  venality.  The  corrupt  advances  of  Johnstone  to  high  American 
officials  were  promptly  repelled.**     . 

*1  MahiK'sbury  Correspondence,  265;  Bancroft  MSS.;  Sparks  MSS.,  Harvard  College. 

t  See,  lor  details  of  this  extraordinary  procednre,  documents  given  infra,  under 
date  of  May  2G,  1781. 

\  Infra,  ^  204/. 

\\  Infra,  ^  105/. 

M  See  index,  title  Arnold. 

**  See  Johnstone  to  Morris,  June  16,  1778,  infra,  with  note. 

In  Rivington's  Gazette,  the  tory  organ  in  New  York  during  British  occupation, 
intercepted  letters  were  from  time  to  time  ])ublishe(l,  showing  the  poverty  of  mem- 
bers of  Congress;  and  these  letters  were  made  the  excuse  for  British  offers  of  pecu- 
niary assistance  to  their  writers.  This  fact  became  known  and  was  the  cause  of  per- 
sonal patriotic  contributions  to  the  support  of  the  parties  whose  necessitous  con- 
dition, produced  by  the  devastations  of  the  war,  had  thus  been  unwittingly  made 
public.  Luzerne,  who  had  a  liberal  snpply  of  funds  in  his  hands,  on  one  or  two 
occasions  joined  in  giving  this  assistance.     The  propriety  of  his  doing  so,   or  of  the 

265 


§  8.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I, 

English  historical  paraUeiism.        §  §,  The  course  of  our  "administrative,"    or 

constructive,   revolutionists   recalls  the  course 
of  the  English  reformers  of  the  same  type  in  1639.     At  that  time  they 
included  in  their  ranks  Falkland  and  Hyde  on  the  one  side,  as  well 
as  Pym,  Hampden,  and  Cromwell  on  the  other,  these  two  wings  of 
the  party  of  reform  comprising  almost  the  entire  house  of  commons.* 
By  this  great  combination  of  reformers  were  passed  the  triennial  bill, 
the  prohibition  of  ship  monej^  and  the  impeachment  of  the  judges  by 
whom  it  was  approved,  the  abolition  of  the  star  chamber  and  the  court 
of  high  commission,  and  the  recognition  of  Parliament  as  the  supreme 
law-making  power  of  the  realm.     Had  reform  rested  at  this  point,  a 
system  would  have  been  established  in  England  at  least  as  liberal  as 
that  which  now  exists.     But  the  perfidy  of  the  king  made  it  difficult  to 
deal  with  him  as  an  executive,  and  then  came  the  issue  whether  an  exec- 
utive could  be  dispensed  with  altogether,  or  whether  the  king,  under  the 
limitations  then  imposed,  could  be  trusted  with  executive  power.     On 
this  issue  the  reformers  fell  apart  into  three  parties.    Falkland  and 
Hyde  conceived  that  they  had  gone  far  enough,  and  that  royal  power 
as  then  limited  could  be  safely  deposited  with  Charles,  forming  a  class 
of  reactionists  of  whom  Galloway  in  our  own  Revolution  was  the  rep- 
resentative.    Vane,  Bradshaw,  and  Hutchinson  represented  the  oppo- 
site extreme,  their  object  being  to  sweep  away  the  existing  system  as  a 
whole,  vesting  all  power  for  the  time  in  the  house  of  commons,  not  con- 
cerning themselves  with  the  task  of  setting  up  a  liberal  government  in 
the  place  of  the  despotism  they  would  cast  aside;  taking,  therefore,  the 
same  line  as  Samuel  Adams  and  the  school  of  which  he  was  the  head 
in  our  own  Revolution.     As  "constructive"  or  "administrative"  revo- 
lutionists at  that  period  may  be  mentioned  Hampden,  Pym,  Northum- 
berland, Essex,  and  Fairfax;  but,  with  the  exception  of  Hampden  and 
Pym,  who  died  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  contest,  these  patriotic  men 
did  notpossessthatascendency  which  enabled  Washington  and  Franklin, 
aided  by  Morris,  by  Livingston,  and  by  Jay,  to  successfully  resist  the 
creation  of  a  government  merely  i^arliameutary  in  the  place  of  a  govern- 
ment whose  powers  were  to  be  distributed,  under  constitutional  checks, 
between  executive,  legislature,  and  judiciary. 

While,  on  the  one  hand,  the  revolution  of  1640  failed  because  it  was 
impelled  by  popular  enthusiasm  without  administrative  leaders,  so  the 
revolution  of  1688  came  near  failing  because,  as  far  as  England  was  cou- 

acceptaDce  of  his  aid,  may  be  doubted;  though  it  must  be  recollected  that  Gouver- 
iieur  Morris,  when  American  minister  at  Paris,  contributed  largely  to  the  pecuniary 
relief  of  La  Fa^\  ette  when  a  member  of  the  French  national  assembly. 

As  to  corrupt  suggestions  to  American  leaders  and  Franklin's  reply,  see  Franklin 
to  Weissenstein,  July  1,  1778,  which,  according  to  Adams,  not  always  a  friendly  judge 
of  Franklin's  style,  gave  them  ''  a  dose  which  will  make  them  sick,"  and  which  cer- 
tainly is  one  of  the  most  effective  papers  Franklin  ever  produced.  The  question  la 
discussed  in  Hale's  Franklin  in  Paris,  241  ff. 

*  See,  as  to  intermediaries,  infra,  ^  197. 

266 


CHAP.  I.]  HISTORIC    PARALLELISMS.  [§  8. 

cerned,  it  was  directed  by  administrative  leaders  without  the  support  of 
popular  euthusiasm.*  Of  that  great  political  genius  William  III  it  is  not 
necessary  to  speak,  as  he  remained  more  or  less  an  alien  in  the  eyes  of 
England  even  during  his  occupancy  of  the  Englisli  throne.  Many  of  the 
highest  administrative  gifts  must  be  rc(30gnized  in  him  if  we  view  him 
simply  as  a  European  sovereign ;  but  intiniate  knowledge  of  English 
politics  he  had  not,  nor  had  he  the  gift  of  winning  the  affection  of  the 
English  people.  The  history  of  those  who,  on  the  English  side,  invited 
him  over,  and  who  were  among  the  leaders  in  eflecting  what  was  called 
the  revolution  settlement,  showp,  that  they  were  not  only  without  heroic 
attachment  to  the  cause  of  liberty,  but  that  they  felt,  and  rightly  felt, 
that  there  was  no  strong  liberal  popular  party  behind  them  which  would 
hold  them  responsible  for  any  derelictions  from  the  liberal  cause.  It  is 
easy  to  say,  as  is  said  by  a  recent  historian,  that  the  intrigues  with  the 
exiled  monarch,  ^'in  which  men  like  Marlborough,  liussell,  Godolphin, 
and  Shrewsbury  were  engaged,"  may  be  imputed,  in  Marlborough's 
case,  to  '^devouring  ambition;"  in  Eussell's  case,  to  "disappointed 
whigism;"  in  Godolphiu's  case,  to  "distrust  of  the  future."     (TrailPs 

*  The  men  who  established  a  republic  iu  Euglaud  in  the  seveuteenth  century 
failed  to  prove  the  good  they  did  was  greater  than  the  good  they  undid.  The  English 
constitution  they  upset  was  distinctly  free,  though  certain  reforms  were  needed  to 
shefir  the  crown  of  prerogatives  which  in  bad  hands  were  fatal  to  liberty.  Part  of 
the  work  had  been  done  by  the  laws  passed  by  the  Long  Parliament ;  there  remained 
the  second  and  possibly  more  difficult  part  of  finding  a  king  who  would  consent  to 
allow  his  ministers  to  be  responsible  to  Parliament.  The  foresight  of  Pym  had  pro- 
vided for  the  emergency.  There  is  little  doubt  that  when  he  invited  to  London 
Charles  Louis,  the  elector  palatine  and  elder  brother  of  Rupert,  he  thought  he  had 
found  such  a  king,  and  contemplated  a  change  of  succession.  But  Pym  was  long 
dead  and  gone,  and  there  had  now  risen  a  race  of  politicians  who  drew  their  states- 
manship from  biblical  or  classical  models,  and  not  from  the  study  of  English  consti- 
tutional history.  The  scheme  of  the  republicans  happened  unfortunately  to  be  utterly 
incapable  of  fitting  on  to  old  institutions.  They  would  not  hear  of  a  government 
consisting  of  two  houses  of  parliament  with  a  president  bearing  the  name  of  king, 
though  such  a  government  might  have  been  made  practically  republican.  Wiiat 
they  proposed  to  establish  was  government  by  a  standing  assembly,  re-elected  or 
recruited  at  stated  intervals ;  and  to  this  it  was  impossible  that  the  nation  should 
give  a  willing  adherence.  They  might  have  accomplished  more  for  their  country  had 
they  laid  to  heart  the  weighty  sentences  of  the  great  philosopher  of  their  youth. 
"It  is  true,"  says  Bacon,  "that  what  is  settled  by  custom,  though  it  be  not  good, 
yet,  at  least,  it  is  fit ;  and  those  things  which  have  gone  long  together  are,  as  it  were, 
confederate  within  themselves,  where  as  new  things  piece  not  so  well;  but,  though 
they  help  by  their  utility,  yet  they  trouble  by  their  incouformity ;  besides  they  are, 
like  strangers,  more  admired  and  less  favored.  It  were  good,  therefore,  that  men  in 
their  innovations  would  follow  the  example  of  time  itself,  which,  indeed,  innovateth 
greatly,  but  quietly,  and  by  degrees  scarce  to  be  perceived;  for  otherwise  whatsoever 
is  new  is  unlocked  for;  and  ever  it  mends  some  and  impairs  others;  and  he  that  is 
holpen  takes  it  for  a  fortune  and  thanks  the  time;  and  he  that  is  hurt,  for  a  wrong 
and  imputeth  it  to  the  author.  It  is  good  also  not  to  try  experiments  in  states,  except 
the  necessity  be  urgent  or  the  utility  evident ;  and  well  to  beware  that  it  be  the  ref- 
ormation that  draweth  on  the  change,  and  not  the  desire  of  change  that  pretendeth 
the  reformation."     (Cordery  and  Philpotts,  King  and  Commonwealth,  305.) 

267 


§  8.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  T. 

William  III,  95.)  But  we  can  not  explain  in  this  way  the  difference 
between  the  revolutionary  leaders  of  168 S  and  the  revolutionary  lead- 
ers of  1776.  Among  the  latter  double  dealing  was  as  rare  as  it  was 
almost  universal  with  the  former.  Treason,  it  is  true,  there  was  on 
both  sides.  Arnold,  as  corrupt  as  he  was  brave,  was  bought  by  a  heavy 
bribe;  but  Arnold  was  no  more  a  representative  statesman  than  was 
Sir  John  Fenwick,  who,  under  Stuart  influence,  was  engaged  in  a  con- 
spiracy against  William  III.  Charles  Lee  was  more  a  spy  than  a  traitor, 
as  he  never  ceased  to  be  an  Englishman.  Deane,  imbittered  by  tbe 
neglect  of  Congress,  and  convinced,  it  may  be,  that  the  best  policy  of 
America,  in  the  summer  of  1782,  was  reconciliation  with  England, 
entered  into  British  service  so  far  as  to  urge  such  reconciliation;  but 
there  was  on  Deane's  part  no  betrayal  of  official  trust,  such  as  there 
was  by  Marlborough,  by  Eussell,  by  Godolphin;  for  Deane  was  an 
exile,  so  far  as  concerns  the  counsels  of  the  United  States,  at  the  time 
be  undertook  to  persuade  the  United  States  that  it  was  better  to  become 
reconciled  with  England.  We  find  no  single  instance  of  such  negotia- 
tion with  England  on  the  part  of  our  revolutionary  leaders  as  existed 
between  most  of  those  who  called  William  III  to  the  throne  and  James 
II.  So  far  from  this,  though  there  was  in  the  minds  of  some  of  our  revo- 
lutionary statesmen  uncertainty  as  to  the  immediate  result  of  the  war, 
there  was  not  from  one  of  them,  except  Deane,  the  slightest  yielding  in 
their  determination  to  agree  to  no  peace  without  independence.  I  will 
retreat,  if  beaten  here  (so  Washington  is  reported  to  have  said,  in  1778), 
to  the  mountains  of  Virginia;  I  will,  if  beaten  there,  retreat  across  the 
Alleghanies;  but  never  will  I  lay  down  my  arms  till  independence 
comes. 

So  Franklin,  when  in  the  same  year  it  was  intimated  to  him  by  an  old 
friend  that  England  and  France  might  become  reconciled  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  America,  in  which  case  his  safety  would  be  endangered,  said : 

"I  thank  you  for  yonr  kind  caution,  but  having  nearly  finished  a  long  life,  I  set  but 
little  value  on  what  remains  of  it.  Like  a  draper,  when  one  chaifers  with  him  for  a 
remnant,  I  am  ready  to  say,  'As  it  is  only  the  fag  end,  I  will  not  differ  with  you 
about  it ;  take  it  for  what  you  x>lea80.'  Perhaps  the  best  use  such  an  old  fellow  can 
be  put  to  is  to  make  a  martyr  of  him."  *" 

In  the  one  case  it  was  the  genius  of  America  on  the  battle-field  that 
thus  spoke;  in  the  other  case,  the  genius  of  America  speaking  through 
a  statesman  who  might  be  exposed,  without  the  power  of  self-defense, 
to  personal  humiliation  and  injury  before  success  was  ultimately  secured. 
By  both  classes — the  statesmen  of  the  camp  and  the  statesmen  of  the 
closet — independence  was  a  condition  essential  to  peace. 

The  cause  of  this  difference  between  the  revolution  of  1688  and  the 
Revolution  of  1770  is,  that  while  in  1770  the  movement  sprang  from  the 
people,  in  1088  the  people,  paralyzed  by  the  Monmouth  failure,  with  its 
consequent  butcheries  in  gross,  hung  back  until  all  chance  of  miscarriage 

*  See  infra,  $  113. 
268 


CHAP.  I.]  UlSTOiUC    PAKALLELliSMS.  [§  6. 

was  over.  The  contrast  in  the  attitude  towards  tbreigii  aid  is,  in  this 
view,  peculiarly  marked.  The  Aniericau  Ke volution  was,  softir  as  the  con- 
quest of  the  interior  was  concerned,  decided  by  the  evacuation  of  Boston 
and  by  the  battles  of  Trenton  and  Saratoga  before  foreign  aid  arrived. 
In  Eno-land  William  III  had  with  him,  down  to  the  period  when  James  IPs 
fate  was  decided,  scarcely  any  troops  but  Dutch.  The  llevolutioii,  also, 
of  1776  was  resisted  by  the  crown  with  all  the  powers  it  could  sum- 
mon. The  ci own  had  with  it  the  great  body  of  the  English  people; 
its  best  generals  were  employed  in  the  service  and  its  best  troops;  and 
when  these  could  not  be  liad  in  sufficient  abundance,  the  comparatively 
exhaustless  funds  of  the  treasury  were  used  to  bring  mercenary  sol- 
diers to  their  aid.*  By  these  armies  sanguinary  battles  were  fought; 
and  even  when  it  became  evident  that  the  country  could  not  be  subju- 
gated by  force,  yet  the  crown  persisted  for  more  than  three  years  in 
the  attempt,  lavishing  blood  and  treasure,  each  fresh  expenditure  of 
wliich  was  an  additional  obstacle  to  reconciliation. 

It  is  true  tbat  Hutchinson  and  other  refugees  were  assiduous  in 
wliisperiug  in  the  royal  ear  that  the  loyalty  of  the  great  body  of  the 
American  people  was  unshaken.  When,  however,  British  armies  trav- 
ersed the  country  this  loyalty  was  found  to  be  without  appreciable 
military  or  political  weight.  Scarcely  a  recruit  could  be  drawn  from 
the  interior  by  the  British  generals  when  in  occupation  of  Boston,  New 
York,  Philadelphia,  and  Charleston;  and  when  Cornwallis  selected 
what  were  called  the  loyalist  regions  of  the  Oarolinas  for  his  last  cam- 
paign, he  found,  as  he  tells  us,  that  those  loyalists  gave  him  no  aid. 
On  the  other  hand,  no  popular  uprising  greeted  William  III  on  his 
arrival,  nor  even  on  his  occupation  of  London.  This  torpor  of  the 
English  people  at  that  great  revolution,  and  the  faint  heartedness  and 
double  dealing  of  the  English  statesmen  who  took  part  in  the  revolu- 
tion, may  be  explained  by  the  political  skepticism  which  the  prior  thirty 
years  had  generated.  There  were  few  mature  politicians  in  1(388  who 
had  not  seen  Charles  II  welcomed  back  with  uproarious  delight  to  the 
same  city  which  had  sent  forth  its  best  citizens  to  till  the  armies  by 
whom  Charles  I  had  been  humbled ;  who  had  not  seen  high  professions 
of  liberalism  disgraced  in  the  lifth-monarchy  men  by  fanatical  uproar; 
in  Cromwell's  case,  by  absolutist  usurpation ;  in  Monk's  case,  by  a  base 
surrender  to  Stuart  bribes.  They  had  seen  political  principles  treated 
as  a  ridiculous  fiction  by  the  court  of  Charles  II,  and  they  had  seen 

*  lu  Lowell's  Hessians  in  the  Revolntion  (New  York,  1884,  300),  the  total  number  of 
German  soldiers  sent  by  Great  Britain  to  America  during  the  Revolution  was  2i),867. 
Of  these  17,313  returned,  1,200  died  from  wounds,  6,554  died  from  illness  and  accident, 
and  5,000  deserted.  ''  For  the  services  of  these  men  England  paid  in  levy-money  and 
subsidies  to  the  princes  more  than  £1,770,000  sterling.  This  was  in  addition  to 
the  pay  of  the  soldiers  and  to  all  expenses  except  those  of  recruiting  and  equipment." 
(Id.,  233.)  On  the  other  hand,  the  laud  force  which  William  III  carried  with  him  to 
England  in  October,  1(588,  consisted  of  4,000  horse  and  10,000  foot  soldiers;  less  than 
half  the  force  sent  over  by  George  III  ninety  years  afterwards  to  subjugate  America, 

269 


§  1).]  Washington's  policy.  [chap.  i. 

James  II  put  down  with  savage  cruelty  a  i)opular  uprising  whicli, 
however  unworthy  may  have  been  Monmouth,  who  led  it,  had  its 
impulse  in  part  in  a  well-founded  sense  of  despotic  oppression.  It  is 
not  strange  that  those  who  had  seen  the  success  of  Cromwell,  the  suc- 
cess of  Charles  II,  the  success  of  James  II  in  the  Monmouth  rebellion, 
should,  if  in  the  ranks  of  people  undistinguished  by  political  rank, 
have  waited  the  course  of  events  before  declaring  themselves  on  Will- 
iam^s  side;  or  that  political  leaders,  dishonorable  as  such  a  course  was, 
should  have  tried  to  keep  in  favor  with  the  Stuarts  even  wben  acting 
as  William's  advisers.  But  as  explanatory  of  the  contrast  offered  by 
the  revolution  of  L776,  we  must  remember  that  the  stream  of  English 
liberalism,  which  became  bold  in  conception  during  the  Reformation, 
and  heroic  in  temper  under  Elizabeth,  reached  America  before  it  had 
lost  its  freshness  and  force,  as  it  did  in  England  by  its  passage  through 
an  era  successively  marked  by  the  extravagancies  of  the  Rump  Parlia- 
ment, by  the  self  constituted  absolutism  of  Cromwell^  by  the  profligacy 
of  Charles  IT,  by  the  brutal  despotism  of  James  II.  The  leaders  of  the 
American  Revolution  represented  what  was  best  and  truest  in  English 
statesmanship,  as  it  awoke  to  liberty  from  the  thraldom  of  that  Tudor 
race  which,  while  it  inspired  heroism  among  the  people,  yet  left  them 
to  achieve  for  themselves  that  liberty  which  heroism  sooner  or  later 
will  win. 

Conflict  of  opinion  as  to  mil-        §  9^  Rome,  SO  it  was  argued,  enslaved  the  world 

itary  policy,   ana    particu-  •'  "  n  •> 

lariy  thatot  Washington.       by  discipline ;  the  Gauls  liberated  it  from  Rome's 

oppression  by  impetuous  zeal.  It  was  untutored 
impetuosity  that  enabled  a  few  farmers  to  drive  back  British  regulars 
at  Lexington,  and  half-armed  militia  to  hurl  back  the  British  onset  at 
Bunker  Hill.  The  reply  was  that  Rome  succumbed  to  her  own  ener- 
vation, and  that  if  the  untutored  farmers  who  drove  back  tlie  invaders 
at  Lexington  and  the  half  armed  militia  who  defended  Bunker  Hill 
had  been  properly  armed,  and  if  the  impetuosity  they  undoubtedly 
showed  had  been  put  under  discipline,  diffused  and  made  permanent 
by  proper  enlistments  and  supplied  with  adequate  arms,  the  British 
army  at  Boston  would  in  a  few  weeks  have  been  forced  to  capitulate 
and  the  war  brought  to  an  early  close.  But  this  reply  was  listened  to  by 
the  very  able  and  devoted  men  to  whom  it  was  addressed  but  coldly; 
and  even  until  the  war  closed  they  maintained  the  superiority  of  what 
they  called  the  ''  militia"  system,  as  distinguished  from  the  "  regular." 
And  after  the  war  was  over  Richard  H.  Lee,  who,  with  Samuel  Adams, 
had  led  the  advocates  of  a  purely  "militia"  policy,  argued,  with  an  earn- 
estness so  solemn  as  to  be  beyond  question,  that,  even  to  defend  our 
frontiers  against  an  invader  or  against  Indians,  "a  standing  army" 
would  be  a  "  horrid  evil,"  in  which  no  good  citizen  should  acquiesce.* 

*  R.  H.  Lee  to  Monroe  ;  1  Baucroft'a  Hist,  of  Coustitution,  337. 

270 


CHAP.  I.] 

On  the  other  liaiul,  Washington,  who,  to  ti  judgment  singularly  clear, 
fair,  comprehensive,  and  dispassionate,  united  a  knowledge  of  military 
duty  in  America  sui)erior  to  that  of  any  one  in  the  service,  took,  as  to 
the  cami)aigns  he  was  to  conduct,  the  following  i)ositions  : 

(rt)  A  war  such  as  that  in  which  the  United  States  had  entered  conld  not  be  sus- 
tained by  au  army  made  up  of  militia  or  of  temporary  volunteers.     The  enlistments, 
must  be  for  the  war. 

{!))  A  legishiti  ve  body,  from  its  difficulty  in  preserving  secrecy,  from  the  multiplicity 
of  its  business,  from  its  lluctuating  membership,  from  its  necessary  unacquaintanco 
with  the  rules  of  war,  is  not  competent  to  phm  campaigns  or  to  make  military  appoint- 
ments. These  functions  should  be  vested  in  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  common- 
wealth, or,  if  there  be  no  chief  magistrate,  in  the  commander-in-chief. 

(c)  Military  service  is  a  profession  and  business,  for  which  there  should  be  due  train- 
ing and  due  support.  Hence,  in  addition  to  the  conditions  of  good  training,  officers 
and  soldiers  should  be  well  paid,  well  clothed,  and  should  have  the  security  given 
them  of  pensions  when  the  war  closes. 

((/)  War  is  not  detorinined  by  collision  of  men  on  a  battle-field.  One  thousand  men 
behind  breastworks  may  be  more  than  a  match  for  five  thousand  men  attacking  such 
breastworks.  Then,  oven  on  an  open  plain,  skill  in  distributing  and  applying  forces 
and  confidence  in  the  commander  may  counterbalance  a  vast  preponderance  of  num- 
bers on  the  other  side. 

The  first  three  of  these  conditions  Washington  declared  to  be  essen- 
tial to  the  success  of  the  Eevolution,  and  he  was  entitled  to  speak  on 
the  subject,  not  merely  because  he  was  commander-in-chief,  elected 
unanimously  as  such,  not  merely  because  of  his  superior  wisdom  and 
experience,  but  because  of  his  disinterestedness  and  unselfish  patriot- 
ism. It  was  known  that  he  refused  any  compensation  for  his  services; 
no  one  entered  iuto  his  presence  without  feeling  that  the  vulgar  ambition 
of  power  as  such  never  found  entrance  in  his  pure  and  majestic  nature. 
Nor  did  he  seek  to  exercise  any  authority  which  Congress  did  not  bestow 
on  him ;  nor  did  the  contingency  of  an  assumption  on  his  part  of  su- 
preme power  seem  to  him  tis  even  within  the  range  of  contemplation. 
What  he  assked  was  that  Congress  should  provide  for  the  enlistment  of 
an  army  for  the  war;  that,  while  re- affirming  its  supremacy.  Congress 
should  vest  the  nominations  of  at  lea^t  general  officers  in  himself;  that 
not  merely  military  training  and  due  pay  should  be  provided  for,  but 
that  a  pension  system  should  be  established  and  that  he  should  be  sus- 
tained in  taking  such  precautions  in  the  way  of  entrenchment  and 
strategy  as  would  enable  him  to  make  up  for  the  enemy's  superiority  in 
military  discipline  and  nachinery.* 

*  Washington's  masterly  campaign  of  the  fall  of  1770  and  the  winter  of  1776-'77 
is  vividly  narrated  by  Mr.  Fisk  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  for  January,  1889,  and 
the  cloud  that  hung  over  the  country  after  the  capture  of  Fort  Washington,  the 
defeat  of  Sullivan  and  Greene,  and  the  capture  of  Charles  Lee  truly  painted.  But  "in 
the  midst  of  the  general  despondency  there  were  a  few  brave  hearts  that  had  not  yet 
begun  to  despair,  and  the  bravest  of  these  was  Washington's.  At  this  awful  moment 
the  whole  future  of  America  and  of  all  that  America  signifies  to  the  world  rested  on  that 

271 


§§  10,  11.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

This  policy  part  of  a  general  §  10.    Tbe    policV    of   WasMugtOIl    iu    ildvising 

system.  '  ,.         .  n 

the  centralization  of  executive  power  in  an  ex- 
ecutive, and  the  application  to  war  of  the  rules  of  science  as  inodilied 
by  our  national  conditions,  is  here  noticed,  because  it  was  the  same 
policy  which  was  urged  by  statesmen  of  the  ''constructive"  school  iu 
reference  to  finance  and  diplomacy.  Hence  it  was,  as  we  will  next  see, 
that  this  policy  was  opposed  in  Congress  on  very  much  the  same  grounds 
in  reference  to  war  as  it  was  in  reference  to  finance  and  diplomacy. 

Congredsiouai  opposition  to        §  11.  In  Oongrcss  the  oppositioii  to  thls  policy 

Washington.  '  . «      .      ,  i  •     i  i 

was  manifested  at  an  early  period,  and  was  otten 
so  strong  as  to  put  grave  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  maintenance  of 
the  war.  At  the  very  outset  was  encountered  the  position  that  Con- 
gress must  retain  in  its  hand  supreme  authority  in  every  sphere.  This 
position  was  defended  with  persistent  energy  by  Samuel  Adams  and 
by  Lovell,*  sustained  by  most  of  the  New  England  delegates,  and  by 
Eichard  H.  Lee  with  his  immediate  friends. t 

As  the  sessions  of  Congress  were  secret,  we  have  to  judge  cf  the  pro- 
ceedings  of  its  members  in  this  relation  by  information  outside  of  its 
/records.  This  information,  as  far  as  attainable,  will  be  now  noticed; 
and  the  inquiry  is  entered  into  on  account  not  only  of  its  intrinsic  in- 
terest, but  of  the  light  it  throws  on  the  attacks  made  by  the  same  par- 
ties on  the  same  grounds  on  the  diplomatic  policy  of  Franklin. 

It  was  at  York,  Pennsylvania,  in  the  winter  of  I777-'78,  when  Howe 
was  at  Philadelphia  and  Washington  at  Valley  Forge,  that  the  antag- 

siugleTitanic  will.  Cruel  defeat,  and  yet  more  cruel  treachery,  euough  to  have  crushed 
the  strougest,  could  not  crush  Washington.  All  the  lion  in  him  was  aroused,  and  his 
powerful  nature  was  aglow  with  passionate  resolve.  His  keen  eye  already  saw  the 
elements  of  weakness  in  Howe's  too  careless  disposition  of  his  forces  on  the  east  hank 
of  the  Delaware,  and  he  had  already  planned  for  his  antagonist  such  a  Christmas  greet- 
ing as  he  little  expected.  *  *  *  Thus  iu  a  brief  campaign  of  three  weeks  Wash- 
ington had  rallied  the  fragments  of  a  defeated  and  broken  army,  fought  two  success- 
ful battles,  taken  nearly  two  thousand  prisoners,  and  recovered  the  State  of  New 
Jersey.  *  *  *  Lord  Cornwallis  w;is  no  mean  antagonist,  and  no  one  was  a  better 
judge  of  what  a  commander  might  be  expected  to  do  with  a  given  stock  of  resources. 
His  surprise  at  the  Assunpink  was  so  great  that  he  never  got  over  it.  After  the 
surrender  at  Yorktown  his  lordsbip  expressed  to  Washington  his  generous  admiration 
for  the  wonderful  skill  which  had  suddenly  hurled  an  army  four  hundred  miles,  from 
the  Hudson  River  to  the  James,  with  such  precision  and  deadly  effect.  'But  after 
all,'  he  added,  'your  excellency's  achievements  in  New  Jersey  were  such  that  nothing 
could  surpass  them.'" 

*  Lovell's  antagonism  to  Washington,  as  well  as  to  Franklin,  was  the  subject  of 
notice  by  both  Gerard  and  Luzerne.  Even  after  the  defeat  at  Camden,  Lovell  con- 
tinued to  press  Gates'  promotion  to  chief  command.  (See  also  intercepted  letters  of 
Lovell  in  Rivingtou's  Gazette  for  December,  t780,  and  January,  1781 ;  noticed  in\l 
Life  of  Gerry,  340, 34:3.)  In  1781  S.  Adams  urged  the  election  of  Gates  as  Secretary  of 
War.     (Greene's  Life  of  Greene,  7,  33 ;  1  Reed's  Life  of  Reed,  433. ) 

tSee.  as  to  the  nature  of  this  combination,  infra,  $  156.  For  a  statement  as  to  R 
H.  Lee's  antagonism  to  Washington,  see  Massachusetts  Centinel  of  January  5,  1788. 

272 


CHAP.  I.]  JEALOUSY    OF   EXECUTIVISM.  [§11. 

ouism  to  Wasliiugtou  culminated.     Of  this  crisis  La  Fayette,  in  bis 
Memoires,  publislieel  ia  1837,  thus  speaks : 

"Gates  dtait  d>  Yorktowu,  ofi  il  en  imposait,  par  son  tou,  ses  i)romc88e9  et  sea  counnis- 
saiices  europdeniies.  Parini  lea  ddputda  qui  s'uuireufc  h,  lui,  on  diatiugua  lea  Leea, 
virginiens,  eimcmis  do  Washington,  ct  lea  deux  Adams."  (1  Memoires  do  Lafayette, 
38;  1  Kandali's  Jefferson,  Hb.) 

This  passage,  aud  the  coutext,  are  thus  translated  by  Sparks  from  llie 
original  manuscript  as  inspected  by  him  when  on  a  visit  at  La  Grange, 
and  is  preserved  in  manuscrii)t  in  volume  32  of  the  Sparks  Papers  at 
Harvard  Library : 

''Gates  was  at  Yorktown.  Among  the  deputies  who  united  themselves  to  him  were 
the  Lees,  of  Virginia,  enemies  of  Washington,  and  the  two  Adamses,  rigid  republicans, 
but  better  qualijied  to  overthrow  than  build  up.  Mifflin,  quartermaster-general,  added 
to  this  party  his  talents  aud  brilliant  eloquence.  It  was  necessary  for  them  to  have 
a  spoiled  child  (wn  enfant  perdu),  and  they  took  Conway,  who  believed  himself  the 
head  of  the  party.  *  *  *  The  peox)le  are  attached  to  fortunate  generals,  aud  the 
commander-in-chief  had  not  been  such.  His  person  inspired  respect  and  even  love, 
but  his  best  friends — Greene,  Hamilton,  Knox — were  defamed,  and  the  tories  fomented 
the  discontent.  The  presidency  of  the  department  of  war,  created  forGates,  restrained 
the  powers  of  the  general.  This  was  not  all.  A  committee  of  Congress  came  to  the 
camp  (at  Valley  Forge),  and  it  was  even  proposed  to  attack  Philadelphia.  It  is  re- 
markable that  in  reality  Gates  was  not  the  object  of  the  intrigue.  Although  a  good 
otlicer,  he  had  not  the  means  to  sustain  himself,  and  he  would  have  had  to  give  place 
to  the  famous  General  Lee,  then  a  prisoner  to  the  English." 

On  December  30,  1777,  La  Fayette  wrote  to  Washington  as  follows  : 

''There  are  open  dissensions  in  Congress;  parties  who  hate  ouo  another  as  much  as 
the  common  enemy  ;  men  who,  without  knowing  anything  about  ivar,  undertake  to  judge 
you  and  to  make  ridiculous  comparisons.  They  arc  infatuated  with  Gates,  without 
thinking  of  the  difference  of  circumstances,  and  believing  that  attacking  is  the  onlg  thing 
necessar'j  to  conquer."* 

Irving,  in  his  Life  of  Washington  (vol.  3,  p.  340),  gives  the  following 
statement  from  William,  son  of  John  Jay : 

"  Shortly  before  the  death  of  John  Adams  I  was  sitting  alone  with  my  father,  con- 
versing about  the  American  Revolution.  Suddenly  he  remarked,  'Ah,  William,  the 
history  of  that  Revolution  will  never  be  known.  Nobody  now  alive  knows  it  but 
John  Adau)s  and  myself.'  Surprised  at  such  a  declaration,  I  asked  him  to  what  he 
referred.  He  briefly  replied,  'The  proceedings  of  the  old  Congress.'  Again  I  in- 
quired, 'What  proceedingsf  He  answered,  'Those  against  Washington.  From 
liist  to  last  there  was  a  most  bitter  party  agaiust  hiin.'  As  the  old  Congress  always 
sat  with  closed  doors,  the  public  knew  no  more  of  what  piyssed  within  than  what  it 
was  deemed  expedient  to  disclose."  t 

Jefferson  was  living  at  the  time  when  these  remarks  were  made,  and 
was  therefore,  by  their  terms,  excluded  from  the  combination  against 

*  1  Washington's  Writings,  4J^8. 

t The  manuscript  narrative  by  Robert  Troup  of  the  circumstances  attending  the 
disclosure  of  the  Gates-Conway  correspondence  in  1777  is  given  in  the  Sparks  Collec- 
tion in  Harvard  College,  volume  49,  part  1,  p.  20. 

lu  5  Washington's  Writings,  by  Sparks,  483,  are  given  several  of  the  papers  rela^ 
tive  to  the  "  Conway  cabal."  For  Gerard's  views,  see  infra,  $  83. 

18  WH  273 


§  11.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

Washington  of  which  they  speak.     Irviug,  iu  commeuting  on  this  pe- 
riod,  says : 

"  Wanting  as  the  intrigues  of  the  cabal  might  ho  iu  plan  or  fixed  design,  they  were 
fraught  with  mischief  to  the  public  service,  inspiring  doubts  of  its  commanders,  and 
seeking  to  provoke  them  to  desperate  enterprises.  They  harassed  Washington  in  the 
latter  part  of  his  campaign,  contributed  to  the  dark  cloud  that  hung  over  his  gloomy 
encampment  at  Valley  Forge,  and  might  have  effected  his  downfall  had  he  been  more 
irascible  in  his  temper,  more  at  the  mercy  of  impulse,  and  less  firmly  fixed  in  the 
affections  of  the  people.  As  it  was,  they  only  tended  to  show  wherein  lay  his  surest 
strength.  Jealous  rivals  he  might  have  in  the  army,  bitter  enemies  in  Congress,  but 
the  soldiers  loved  him,  and  the  large  heart  of  the  nation  always  beat  true  to  him." 

The  distinctive  groupiugof  the  Adamses  and  Lees  existed,  according 
to  Charles  F.  Adams,  as  early  as  the  tall  of  1775.  In  his  life  of  John 
Adams  (1  John  Adams  Works,  183)  he  says : 

"The  Adamses  of  Massachusetts  and  the  Lees  of  Virginia  were  the  dangerous  minor- 
ity who  had  all  along  aimed  at  independency,  but  whose  purposes  had  never  been 
so  openly  exposed  as  now.  Mr.  Dickinson,  Mr.  Silas  Deane,  and  Mr.  Jay  were  the 
exponents  of  the  majority,  and  during  the  month  of  September  the  committees,  if 
nothing  else,  show  with  tolerable  clearness  the  temper  prevailing  in  the  hody." 

In  John  Adams'  Autobiography  {ibid,  iii,  32)  it  is  said : 

"Mr.  Samuel  Adams  and  myself  were  very  intimate  with  Mr.  (R.  H.)  Lee,  and  he 
agreed  perfectly  with  us  in  the  great  system  of  our  policy,  and  by  his  means  we  kept 
a  majority  of  the  delegates  of  Virginia  with  us;  but  Harrison,  Pendleton,  and  some 
others  showed  their  jealousy  of  this  intimacy  plainly  enough  at  times.  Harrison  con- 
sequently courted  Mr.  Hancock  and  some  others  of  our  colleagues,  but  we  had  now 
a  majority,  and  gave  ourselves  no  trouble  about  their  little  intrigues."  * 

Mr.  Bancroft  sums  up  the  case  as  follows : 

"  In  Congress,  which  had  already  much  degenerated  and  had  become  distracted  by 
Selfish  schemers,  there  were  signs  of  impatience  at  his  superiority,  and  an  absolute 
reluctance  to  own  that  the  depressed  condition  of  the  country  was  due  to  their  hav- 
ing refused  to  heed  his  advice.  To  a  proposition  for  giving  him  power  to  name  gen- 
erals John  Adams  objected  vehemently,  saying,  'In  private  life  I  am  willing  to 
respect  and  look  up  to  him;  in  this  house  I  feel  myself  to  be  the  superior  of  General 
Washington.'  Samuel  Adams  once  wrote :  '  1  have  always  heen  so  very  wrong-headed 
as  not  to  be  over  well  pleased  with  what  is  called  the  Fabian  war  in  America.'  The 
temper  of  the  body  is  best  shown  by  their  resolves  of  the  24th  of  February,  when  they 
voted  to  Washington  mere  'ideal  re-iuforcements,'  and  then,  after  an  earnest  debate, 
in  which  some  of  the  New  England  delegates  and  one  from  New  Jersey  showed  a 
willingness  to  insult  him,  they  expressed  their  'earnest  desire'  that  he  would  'not 
only  curb  and  confine  the  enemy  within  their  present  quarters,  but,  by  the  divine 
blessing,  totally  subdue  them  before  they  could  be  re-inforced.'     Well  might  Wash- 

*  Jobez  (France  under  Louis  XVI,  t.  ii,  liv.  ii,)  discusses  "Ics  intrigues  des  amis 
de  Gates,  les  Adams,  et  les  Lee."  So  also  Doniol,  iii,  263  ff.  (See  further,  as  to  the 
parties  to  this  combination,  infra,  $  156.) 

"Among  the  slights  designedly  put  on  Washington  at  this  time  was  Gates'  inten- 
tional omission  to  notify  him  of  liurgoyne's  capitulation,  simply  referring  to  it 
incidentally  in  a  letter  written  two  weeks  after  the  event.  Washington  wa*^s  fully 
conscious  of  this  and  other  marks  of  disrespect  by  Gates,  Charles  Lee,  and  their  con- 
gressional friends.  'He  felt-he  could  but  feel-them.'  But  'he  evinced  his  usual 
magnanimity.'  '  He  allowed  no  word  of  unworthy  complaint  to  fall  from  him.' "  (6 
Mahon's  History  of  England,  193 ;  English  edition  1851,  vi,  293.) 
274 


CHAP.  I.]  JEALOUSY    OF    EXECUTIVISM.  [§  11. 

ingtou  reply,  'What  bopo  cau  tLero  bo  of  my  effecting  so  desirable  a  work  at  this 
time  ?  The  whole  of  our  numbers  in  New  Jersey  lit  for  duty  is  under  three  thousand.' 
The  absurd  paragraph  was  carried  by  a  )>are  majority,  in  which  Richard  Henry  Leo 
brought  up  Virginia  to  the  side  of  the  four  Eastern  States  against  the  two  Carolinas, 
Now  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania."     (I)  Bancroft's  History  United  States,  255.) 

Tbe  statements  of  La  Fayette  and  of  Jay,  as  ^iven  above,  are  sus- 
tained by  traditions  whieli,  though  probably  not  accurate  in  detail,  yet 
rest  no  doubt  on  a  basis  of  truth.  By  a  resolution  of  Congress  of 
October  14,  1777,  two  members  were  necessary  to  entitle  a  State  to  a 
vote.  In  the  Congress  at  York,  in  the  earlier  days  of  January,  1778, 
when  the  atmosphere  was  i)eculiarly  dark,  of  the  five  New  York  mem- 
bers only  two  were  present.  One  of  these  was  Francis  Lewis,  who  will 
appear  in  the  following  pages  as  an  active  member  of  the  naval  board 
and  as  a  correspondent  of  Franklin.  The  other  was  William  Duer. 
The  tradition  is  that  the  members  unfriendly  to  Washington's  pol- 
icy, and  desirous  of  taking  action  which  would  have  compelled  his 
resignation,  would  have  had  a  majority  if  New  York,  which  was  friendly 
to  Washington,  was  excluded.  It  so  happened,  so  it  is  said,  that  on 
the  eve  of  a  critical  vote  Duer  was  so  ill  that  it  was  a  serious  question 
whether  he  could  be  moved  to  the  court-house,  where  Congress  sat. 
Against  his  physician's  advice  he  determined  to  attend  the  session ; 
and  he  was  in  a  litter  for  this  purpose  when  Gouverueur  Morris,  a  third 
New  York  member,  opportunely  arrived.  This  enabled  the  vote  of  New 
York  to  be  counted  against  the  proposed  measure  hostile  to  Washing- 
ton, and  it  was  consequently  withdrawn.  Such  is  the  outline  of  a  nar- 
rative given  in  substantially  the  same  terms  in  the  Life  of  Francis 
Lewis,  by  his  granddaughter,  and  in  Dunlap's  History  of  New  York.* 
By  Dunlap,  General  Morgan  Lewis  (then  Colonel  Lewis  and  one  of  the 
staff  of  General  Gates,  who  arrived  at  York  with  Gouverueur  Morris) 
is  given  as  authority  for  the  narrative  j  the  report  in  the  Life  of  Lewis 
rests  on  family  tradition. 

The  date  of  the  arrival  of  Gouverueur  Morris  is  fixed  in  the  following 
extract  from  an  instructive  letter  on  this  topic  from  Mr.  Stone,  librarian 
of  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania : 

*'  Gouverneur  Morris  took  his  seat  in  Congress  on  January  20,  1778.  Duer  was  pres- 
ent in  Congress  on  the  15th  and  again  on  the  31st,  the  only  days  between  those  dates 
on  which  votes  are  recorded  in  the  printed  journals.  Ho  may  have  been  sick  or  not. 
The  evidence  is  not  satisfactory.  The  manuscript  diary  of  the  Moravian  church  at 
Bethlehem  contains  the  following;  'January  4.  Lewis  Morris,  a  delegate  from  New 
York,  passed  thro'.'  Now,  as  Lewis  Morris  retired  from  Congress  in  1777,  this  undoubt- 
edly was  his  brother,  Gouverneur,  on  his  way  to  York.  The  same  authority,  under 
date  of  the  9th,  records  :  '  Gen.  Gates  and  family  arrived  this  evening  from  Albany, 
on  their  way  to  York  Town.  (They  left  on  the  9.)'  Under  date  of  January  10,  1778, 
Christopher  Marshall,  who  was  at  Lancaster,  recorded  in  his  diary :  *  Came  Capt. 
Markoe,  who  said  that  John  Benezet  was  just  come  to  town,  who  left  General  Gates 
yesterday  at  Nazareth.'  On  the  14th  be  writes :  '  News  that  General  Gates  went  to 
Congress  yesterday.'    You  see  here  is  good  evidence  that  Gates  and  his  family,  of 

*  1  Life  of  F.  Lewis,  45;  2  Dunlap's  History  of  New  York,  133. 

275 


§11.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

which  Colonel  Morris  was  a  member,  and  Goiivenieur  Morris  were  all  on  their  way 
towards  York  a  few  days  before  the  latter  took  his  seat  in  Congress.  Allowing  for 
the  detention  at  the  ferry,  on  acconnt  of  the  ice  in  the  river,  they  must  have  arrived 
at  York  about  the  20th." 

Sucli  being  the  dates,  the  question  then  arises  as  to  what  action  hos- 
tile to  Washington  was  contemplated  at  that  period.  Of  the  particular 
offensive  motion  there  would  be  no  record,  as  it  was  withdrawn,  and  it 
was  not  customary  to  preserve  in  the  archives  withdrawn  motions.  Of 
the  debates  also  or  of  any  action  of  Congress  at  that  time  except  in 
respect  to  reports,  to  instructions,  or  to  votes,  there  is  no  record;  and 
so  strictly  was  secrecy  maintained,  that  even  in  the  letters  of  members 
to  their  friends  it  is  frequently  in  those  days  stated  that  they  were  pro- 
hibited by  the  injunction  from  detailing  what  took  i)lace.  But  there  is 
enough,  aside  from  the  statements  of  La  Fayette  and  Jay,  to  show 
that  there  was  then  in  Congress  a  large  party,  sometimes  making  up  a 
majority,  opposed  to  the  policy  of  Washington,  and  disposed  to  over- 
rule if  not  to  dejiose  him. 

On  November  7,  1777,  Congress,  sitting  at  York,  Pennsylvania, 
elected  a  continental  board  of  war,  consisting  of  Milfliu,  Robert  H.  Har- 
rison, and  IMckering.  Harrison  declined  the  appointment.  On  Novem- 
ber 24,  1777,  it  was  resolved  to  appoint  two  additional  commissioners, 
upon  which  General  Gates,  Colonel  Joseph  Trumbull,  and  Richard 
(afterwards  Judge)  Peters  were  elected  to  fill  the  posts  thus  vacant. 
On  January  10,  1778,  it  was  resolved  that  three  members  of  Congress, 
together  with  three  members  of  the  board  of  war,  ''be  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  repair  to  General  Washington's  headquarters,  as  soon  as  may 
be,  and,  in  concert  with  him,  to  form  and  execute  a  plan  for  reducing 
the  number  of  battalions,  etc. ;  *  *  *  to  recommend  to  Congress  the 
necessary  appointments  of  general  officers ;  to  remove  officers  in  the  civil 
departments  of  the  army  for  misconduct,  negligence,  or  incompetency, 
and  to  appoint  others  in  their  room  until  the  pleasure  of  Congress  can  be 
known;  to  remove  all  just  causes  of  complaint  relative  to  rank,  confin- 
ing it  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  military  line;  *  *  *  and  in  gen- 
eral to  ado])t  such  other  measures  as  they  shall  judge  necessary  for 
introducing  economy  and  promoting  discipline  and  good  morals  in  the 
army  ;  the  members  of  Congress  chosen:  Mr.  Dana,  Mr.  Read,  and  Mr. 
Folsom."  On  January  12  Congress  elected  as  members  of  the  board  of 
war,  to  join  the  committee  above  stated.  General  Gates,  General  Mifflin^ 
and  Colonel  Pickering.  Mr.  llarvie  was  elected  on  the  same  da^^  an  addi- 
tional member  of  the  committee.  Of  the  attachment  of  Harvie,  who 
was  one  of  the  Virginia  delegates  to  Washington,  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion. The  same  may  be  said  of  George  Read,  of  Delaware.  As  to  the 
other  members  of  the  committee  the  following  observations  may  be 
made: 

Mifflin,  though  holding  friendly  personal  relations  with  Washington, 
and  though  afterwards,  when  governor  of  Pennsylvania,  at  the  time  of  the 

276 


CHAP.  I.]  JEALOUSY    OF    EXECUTIVISM.  [§  1 1  • 

whisky  insurrection,  resolute  in  the  support  lie  gave  Washington,  was 
in  1777  unquestionably  opposed  to  vesting  in  Washington  those  pow- 
ers necessary  to  the  performance  of  his  duties  as  commander-in-chief. 

Of  Dana  we  shall  liave  something  to  say  hereafter.*  Mis  action  in 
Congress  in  1777  and  his  correspondence  with  Samuel  and  John  Adams 
at  that  ])eriod  show  how  attached  he  was  to  their  distinctive  views 
and  how  lie  shared  the  horror  they  then  felt  of  executive  authority,  no 
matter  what  might  be  the  shape  it  assumed.  '  A  strong  believer  also 
in  the  power  of  untutored  impetuosity  in  war  as  well  as  di|)lomacy,  ho 
was,  like  Samuel  Adams,  peculiaily  restive  of  the  "Fabianism"  of 
Washington.  To  Folsom,  a  New  IJami)shire  member,  the  same  gen- 
eral position  may  be  assigned,  if  we  can  judge  from  his  votes  on  the 
questions  arising  at  tliis  period.  TJje  New  England  members,  it  should 
be  added,  felt  at  this  time,  not  unnaturally,  aggrieved  at  certain  expres- 
sions used  by  Washington  in  a  letter  of  August  26,  1775,  to  Kichard 
H.  Lee,  strongly  censuring  the  conduct  of  the  troops  and  officers  of 
New  England  at  that  period;  and  though  these  and  similar  utterances 
sprang  from  temporary  disorders  of  which  Washington  had  just  cause  to 
complain,  and  though  they  were  afterwards  followed  by  hearty  words  of 
confidence,  yet  falling  as  they  did,  at  least  in  substance,  into  the  hands 
of  Samuel  Adams  and  his  friends,  they  produced  an  alienation  which 
it  took  many  months  and  many  political  changes  to  recover  from. 
Written,  as  was  the  letter  of  August  2G,  1775,  to  Richard  H.  Lee,  it 
might  as  well,  so  far  as  its  effect  was  concerned,  have  been  written  to 
Samuel  Adams,  so  close  was  their  intimacy. 

Joseph  Trumbull,  a  son  of  Governor  Jonathan  Trumbull  the  elder, 
was  the  first  commissary-general  of  the  United  States  army.  This  post 
he  resigned  August  21,  1777.  \n  October,  1777,  he  was  appointed  one 
of  the  five  commissioners  of  the  board  of  war.  He  died  in  July,  1799. 
He  was  brother  to  Jonathan  Trumbull  (the  2d),  who  was  paymaster  in 
the  northern  department  of  the  army  until  1780,  when  he  became  sec- 
retary to  Washington.  After  the  adoption  of  the  federal  constitution 
he  was  successively  a  member  of  the  federal  House  of  Representatives 
and  Senate,  and  was  for  several  \^ears  governor  of  C^onnecticut.  In  1777 
he  was  strongly  attached  to  Gates  and  dissatisfied  with  Washington ; 
and  the  family  correspondence,  now  in  possesssion  of  the  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  his  opinion  in  this 
respect  was  shared  by  his  brother  Josei)h,  the  member  of  the  board  of 
war.  It  is  proper  to  add  that  with  Jonathan  (the  2d)  this  prejudice 
against  Washington  afterwards  gave  way  to  affection  and, veneration. 

Peters  and  Pickering  remained  active  members  of  the  board.  To 
Peters,  a  staunch  friend  of  Washington,  Pickering,  on  January  21, 1811, 
then  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  addressed  a  letter,  in  which  he 
goes  into  great  detail,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  opinion  of 

*  Infra,  ^  108  ff.     See  also  index,  title  Daua. 

277 


§  11.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

Washington's  incompetency  as  com maucler-iu  chief,  vindicating  thereby 
his  action  in  1777  adverse  to  Washington.  "I  joined  the  main  army," 
so  says  Pickering,  "as  adjutant-general,  in  the  middle  of  June,  1777. 
In  less  than  three  months  after  happened  the  battle  of  Brandywine,"  a 
battle  which  he  describes  in  detail,  making  it  appear  that  Washington, 
although  on  the  field,  let  the  battle  take  care  of  itself.  On  September 
16,  according  to  Pickering,  the  question  of  further  retreat  came  up,  and 
as  to  this  he  thus  speaks  : 

•'  Having  been  with  the  army  just  three  months,  and  in  that  time  not 
having  found  it  possible  to  accost  the  general  with  ease  (although  I 
could  converse  without  difficulty  and  freely  with  every  other  general 
officer)  and  being  naturally  diffident,  you  will  imagine  how  urgent  was 
the  occasion  when  1  conld  address  him  in  this  language:  'Sir,  the 
advancing  of  the  British  is  manifest  by  the  reports  of  the  musketry. 
Tiie  order  of  battle  is  not  comx^leted.  If  we  are  to  fight  the  enemy 
on  this  ground  the  troops  onght  to  be  immediately^  arranged.  If  we 
are  to  take  the  high  grounds  on  the  other  side  of  the  valley  we  ought 
to  march  immediately,  or  the  enemy  may  fiill  upon  us  in  the  midst  of 
our  movements.  Pray,  sir,  decide.^  *  Let  us  move,^  was  the  general's 
instant  answer.  You  may  see  this  i^assage  on  the  27th  page  of  my  letter 
of  April  22,  1808,  to  Governor  Sullivan,  of  which  I  sent  you  a  copy, 
excepting  the  three  emphatical  words  which  concluded  my  short  but 
earnest  address;  for,  after  I  had  written  the  words  ^Pray,  sir,  decide,' 
I  struck  them  out,  as  they  so  strongly  marked  the  general's  w^ant  of 
decision.  Hence  the  printed  letter  appears  without  them."  He  goes 
on  to  say  that  although  he  had  entered  the  army  with  "an  exalted 
opinion  of  General  Washington's  military  talents,"  he  had  at  that  time, 
just  before  the  retreat  to  Valley  Forge,  not  only  seen  nothing  to  "sup- 
port" that  opinion,  but  that  "my  opinion  was  exceedingly  lowered. 
For  on  the  11th  of  September,  in  the  time  of  action,  the  general  for  the 
most  part  appeared  more  like  a  passive  spectator  than  the  commanding 
general;  and  on  the  IGth  was  manifested  the  dangerous  indecision 
above  stated."  Of  the  skirmish  at  White  Marsh,  "in  the  beginning  of 
December,"  Pickering  gives  a  detailed  account,  the  salient  feature  of 
wiiich  is  that  the  general  asked  him  whether  it  was  "  best  to  re-enforce 
Morgan  or  not;"  upon  which  "instantly  I  answered  in  the  negative, 
giving  reasons,  and  then  '  That  is  true,'  was  the  general's  reply.  After 
skirmishing  with  Morgan's  corps  and  the  advanced  guards  the  enemy 
retired." 

As  further  sustaining  the  propriety  of  the  conclusions  to  which  he 
then  arrived,  Pickering  gives  as  a  closing  proof  a  conversation  between 
himself  and  Washington  at  the  siege  of  Yorktown,  in  which  he  virtually 
charged  Washington  with  not  knowing  what  investment  of  a  fortified 
place  meant,  and  with  recklessly  exposing  his  men  in  such  an  invest- 
ment. To  this  charge,  according  to  Pickering,  "the  General  made  no 
reply,"  and  on  this  we  have  Pickering's  comment,  as  follows:  "This 
278 


CHAP.  I.]  JEALOUSY    OF    EXECUTIVISM.  [§  11. 

was  the  seventh  year  of  the  war,  and  yet  it  is  certain  that  the  general 
had  not  then  formed  any  distinct  idea  of  the  investment  of  a  fortified 
place.'^  That  these  were  Pickering's  deliberate  views  appears  not  only 
from  the  care  shown  in  the  original  letter  to  Peters,  from  which  the  above 
is  taken,  but  from  the  fact  that  a  copy  of  the  letter,  with  only  slight  varia- 
tions, was  preserved,  evidently  for  the  publication,  which  it  afterwards 
received.*  These  passages  are  cited,  not  because  Pickering's  judgment 
on  military  matters  is  entitled  to  the  slightest  weight,  but  because  they 
show  the  position  taken  by  the  opponents  of  Washington  in  the  con- 
gressional committee  of  1777-'78. 

Taking  into  consideration,  therefore,  the  attitude  of  the  committee  on 
military  affairs  as  originally  appointed,  we  can  understand  why  it  was 
that  the  friends  of  Washington  should  have  looked  upon  the  conse- 
quences of  its  action  with  grave  uneasiness.  If  Pickering's  views,  held 
by  him  as  they  undoubtedly  were  with  his  customary  tenacity,  had 
prevailed,  Washington  would  have  been  put  in  a  position  in  which  the 
only  alternatives  were  resignation  or — disastrous  as  would  have  been 
the  precedent,  and  repugnant  as  it  would  have  been  to  Washington — 
an  appeal  to  the  army  and  the  people  at  large. 

Tbe  arrival  of  Gates  at  York  at  this  very  crisis  tends  to  sustain  the 
Lewis  tradition,  since  it  is  not  unlikely  that  when  one  side  summoned 
Gouveneur  Morris  for  the  emergency,  the  other  side  would  have  sum- 
moned Gates. 

Mifflin  was  known  in  1777  to  be  among  those  who  thought  it  would 
be  better  that  Washington  should  be  superseded  by  a  more  adventu- 
rous general.  Yet  in  the  fall  of  1777  we  find  Richard  H.  Lee  urging 
Mifflin  to  accept  a  seat  in  the  board  of  war,  to  which  he  had  been 
just  elected,  and  in  which  his  disaffection  to  Washington  would  be  pe- 
culiarly f>otent. 

Shortl}^  after  the  appointment  of  the  committee  above  noticed, 
when  the  impropriety  of  putting  Mifflin  on  such  a  committee  was  urged, 
those  so  objecting  were  sneered  at  by  Lovell,  a  leading  Massachusetts 
delegate,  as  "  devotees  of  Fabius,"t  and  Lovell,  as  we  have  seen,  un- 
questionably desired  to  see  Washington  superseded  by  Gates.  By  the 
same  parties  Conway's  cause  was  sustained  in  1777  with  some  proba- 
bility of  success,!  though  on  June  7, 1778,  Conway,  when  attending  the 
session  of  Congress  after  the  failure  of  the  plot  above  mentioned,  writes 
to  Gates : 

"My  reception,  you  may  imagine,  was  not  a  warm  one.  I  must  except  Mr.  Samnel 
Adams,  Colonel  Richard  Henry  Lee,  and  a  few  others,  who  are  attached  to  you,  hut 
who  can  not  oppose  the  current."^ 

*  2  Pickering's  Life,  by  Upham,  83-87. 

+  Lovell  to  S.  Adams,  Jan.  21,  1780,  Bancroft,  MSS.     LovelFs  opposition  to  Wash- 
ington is  noticed  at  the  beginning  of  this  section. 
X  Dner's  Life  of  Sterling,  183  /. 
§  1  Sparks'  Life  of  G.  Morris,  169.     See  2  Greene's  Life  of  Greene,  39. 

279 


§  11.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

lu  March,  1777,  General  Charles  Lee,  then  a  prisoner  in  New  York, 
entered  into  a  traitorous  correspondence  with  the  British  authorities. 
His  perfidy,  which  was  suspected,  Hamilton  tells  us,  by  those  who  wit- 
nessed his  subsequent  misconduct  at  Monmouth,  he  sought  to  cover  up 
by  violent  public  denunciations  of  Washington.*  Yet  on  September 
12,  1778,  we  find  Dr.  William  Shippen  writing  to  his  brother-in-law, 
Richard  H.  Lee.  as  follows : 

"We  wrote  several  letters  to  yon  on  General  [Charles]  Lee's  sitnation,  informing 
yon  that  there  are  many  very  good  officers  in  camp  who  approve  of  his  conduct  on  the 
28th,  and  are  siirprisedat  the  sentence  of  the  court-martial:  such  as  Gates,  Knox,  Lin- 
coln, Parsons,  McDougal,  etc.  You  have  all  the  testimony,  etc.,  before  yon,  and  I  am 
sure  will  not  do  injustice  to  so  able  an  officer.  General  L.  says  he  blames  liimself 
only  for  not  ordering  a  retreat."* 

Several  other  letters  appear  among  the  Arthur  Lee  papers  showing 
the  attachment  of  the  brothers  to  Charles  Lee,  who,  though  not  a  rela- 
tive, was  their  i)ersoual  friend. 

After  the  arrival  of  Carroll  on  January  17  and  of  Gouverneur  Morris 
on  January  20,  and  the  consequent  accession  of  Maryland  and  New  York 
to  the  States  supporting  Washington,  the  following  proceedings  indi- 
cate that  the  majority  of  Congress,  as  thus  reconstituted,  was  not  ready 
to  leave  the  control  of  the  proposed  comruittee  in  the  hands  of  Wash- 
ington's adversaries: 

Januarii  20,  1778. — "Ordered,  That  the  members  attending  the  business  of  the  board 
of  war  inquire  of  General  Gates  whether  he  can  go  to  camp,  agreeably  to  his  appoint- 
ment, for  the  purpose  expressed  in  the  resolution  of  the  10th  instant,  and  when  lie  can 
set  out  on  that  business." 

In  the  afternoon  the  committee  reported: 

"  The  members  who  conduct  the  business  of  the  board  of  war  reported  to  Congress 
sundry  reasons  assigned  by  General  Gates  why  the  members  of  the  board  of  war  ought 
immediately  to  enter  on  the  business  of  that  department ;   whereupon  : 

"  Resolved,  Tliat  General  Gates,  General  Mifflin,  and  Colonel  Pickering  be  excused 
from  attending  on  the  business  mentioned  in  the  resolution  of  the  10th,  and  that 
General  Mifflin,  Colonel  Pickering,  and  Colonel  Trumbull  be  directed  to  repair  imme- 
diately to  this  place. 

*'  Eesolved,  That  two  members  be  added  to  the  committee  appointed  to  repair  to 
camp  to  execute  the  business  prescribed  in  the  resolutions  of  the  10th  inst. 

''The  members  chosen:  Mr.  Carroll  and  Mr.  G.  Morris." 

Henry  Laurens,  a  delegate  from  South  Carolina  and  for  a  time  Pres- 
ident of  Congress,  was  in  the  fall  of  1777  regarded  as  sympathizing 
with  Samuel  Adams  and  the  Lees  in  their  dread  of  executive  invasion 
of  congressional  prerogative.  This  was  the  cause  of  his  being  looked 
upon  by  Gates  and  Conway  as  friendly  to  their  canse,  differing  in  this 

*  27  South.  Lit.  Mes.,  437.  This  letter  is  among  the  Lee  MSS.  Charles  Lee's  his- 
tory and  treason  are  discussed  in  a  note  to  a  letter  of  Franklin  to  Charles  Lee,  infra, 
under  date  of  Feb.  11,  1776.  Charles  Lee,  according  to  one  of  Yorke's  dispatches  from 
Holland  to  the  British  ministry  (Sparks  Collection  at  Harvard  College,  vol.  72),  was 
the  "  worst  present  the  Americans  coukl  ri'.ceive."  (See  George  H.  Moore's  "Treason 
of  Charles  Lee,"  N.  Y.,  1858.) 

280 


CHAP.  I.]  JEALOUSY    OF    EXECUTIVISM.  [§  11. 

Tespect  from  bis  son,  Jobn  Laurens,  who  was  devotedly  attaclied 
to  VVasbiugton.  Tbe  following  extract,  bowever,  from  a  letter  from 
Henry  Laurens  to  Jobn  Laurens,  dated  April  9,  1778,  at  York  Town, 
Pennsylvania,  wbere  Congress  was  tben  sitting,  sbows  tbat  at  tliat 
time  tbe  friends  of  Gates  bad  given  up  tbe  expectation  of  putting  bim 
in  Wasbington's  place: 

"In  conversation  with  General  Gates,  without  seeking  on  my  side,  I  discovered  an 
inclination  on  liis  part  to  be  upon  friendly  terms  with  our  great  and  good  general. 
It  can  not  be  doubted  that  there  is  the  same  disposition  on  the  other  side.  Wliat 
wouhl  I  not  give  to  see  a  perfect  and  happy  reconciliation  ?  In  talking  of  General  Con- 
way's letter,  which  has  been  circulating,  as  formerly  intimated,  and  of  which  General 
Gates  declared  his  ignorance  and  disapprobation,  I  took  occasion  to  say  if  General 
Conway  protends  sincerity  in  his  late  parallel  between  the  great  F.  [Fabius]  and  the 
great  W.,he  has,  taking  this  letter  into  view,  been  guilty  of  the  greatest  hypocrisy  ; 
if  not,  he  is  chargeable  with  the  guilt  of  an  unprovoked  sarcasm.  The  general 
(Gates)  perfectly  acquiesced  in  that  sentiment,  and  added  such  hints  as  convinced 
me  he  thought  lightly  of  Conway.  Shall  such  a  man  separate  friends  and  keep  them 
asunder?    It  must  not  be."     (MSS.,  Dreer  Collection,  Philadelphia.)* 

Were  we  able  to  decipber  tbe  letters  written  on  congressional  poli- 
tics by  Richard  Henry  Lee  and  of  bis  correspondents,  which  are  among 
tbe  Lee  pai)ers  at  FJarvard,  in  the  archives  of  the  Ameiican  Philosoph- 
ical Society,  and  in  the  library  of  tbe  University  of  Virginia,  no  doubt 
much  of  the  cloud  which  hangs  over  tbe  congressional  intrigues  of  tbat 
critical  period  would  be  removed.  Tbe  letters  of  Richard  H.  Lee  to 
Arthur  Lee  in  particular  are  copious  in  their  details  of  congressional 
action  at  that  time;  but  at  tbe  very  moment  when  light  seems  to  dawn 
upon  us,  and  when  the  names  of  t'jose  arrayed  for  and  against  independ- 
ency of  executive  action  seem  about  to  be  disclosed,  we  run  against 
ciphers  which  are  now  insoluble.  By  those  of  Richard  H.  Lee's  corre- 
spondents who  did  not  use  this  cipher  nicknames  are  used,  whose  mean- 
ing is  now  lost.  Who,  for  instance,  is  "  Fiddle-head  "  and  "  Base-viol," 
who  appear  in  the  congressional  notes  of  Whipple,  a  member  from  New 
Hampshire,  and  a  devoted  friend  of  Richard  H.  Lee  and  of  Samuel 
Adams '?t  Yet,  until  these  questions  are  answered  and  the  ciphers  in 
tbe  correlative  parts  of  tbe  Lee  papers  translated,  we  can  not  understand 
what  were  the  party  divisions  in  the  sessions  of  1777-79,  as  viewed  by 
Richard  H.  Lee  and  his  friends. | 

*  A  letter,  however,  from  Gates  to  Laurens,  May  27,  1778  (Moore's  Materials,  etc., 
Ill),  shows  that  Gates,  notwithstanding  the  above,  continued  to  stand  by  Conway. 
See,  also,  Gates  to  Laurens,  June  22,  1779  {id.,  144).  As  to  Henry  Laurens,  see  infra, 
$  172.    • 

+  See  2  E.  H.  Lee's  Life,  111  /. 

t  A.S  an  illustration  of  the  ciphers  used  by  Richard  H,  Lee  may  be  given  the 
following,  from  a  letter  of  his  to  Arthur  Lee,  dated  February  11, 1779:  "  He  (Deaue) 
has  a  very  strong  and  a  very  artful  party  in  99  ax  vii,  and  by  means  of  commercial  con- 
nections a  considerable  .  .  .  6  xxxv  in  almost  every  354  axxxvi.  In  the  East- 
ern States,  where  he  is  well  known,  he  has  by  far  the  fewest  supporters.  Indeed  he 
has  very  few  there.  Those  people  are  wise,  attentive,  sober,  diligent,  and  frugal, 
which  are  qualities  not  fit  for  Peane'e  purposes.     His  principal  34  a  ix  s  are  from 

281 


§  11.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

That  John  Adams  was  during  the  Revolution  hostile  to  giving  ex* 
ecutive  j)ower  to  the  general-inchief  or  to  executive  boards,  and  that 
he  thoroughly  disapproved  of  Washington's  distiuctive  military  policy, 
has  been  already  incidentally  observed.  In  John  Adams' Works  there 
are  several  incidental  allusions  to  his  acceptance  of  this  position.  Thus 
in  addressing  Greene,  on  June  22, 1776,  he  said  -:* 

''That  this  p  wer  (of  promotion  of  officers  by  Congress)  may  be  abused  aucl  misap- 
plied is  also  true.  That  interest,  favor,  private  friendship,  x^rejudice  may  operate 
more  or  less  in  the  present  assembly  is  true.  But  where  would  you  lodge  this  power? 
To  place  it  in  the  general  would  be  more  dangerous  to  the  public  liberty,  and  not  less 
liable  to  abuse  from  sinister  and  unworthy  motives." 

In  subsequent  letters,  as  well  as  in  debate,  this  view  was  earnestly 
pressed,  and  it  was  insisted  that  the  appointment  of  officers  should  be 
given  to  the  States  from  where  the  detachments  to  be  commanded  came. 

He  "hoped,"  in  March,  1777,  "that  Congress  will  elect  annnally  all 
the  general  officers.  If,  in  consequence  of  this,  some  great  men  should 
be  obliged  at  the  year's  end  to  go  home  and  serve  their  country  in  some 
other  capacity  not  less  necessary  and  better  adapted  to  their  genius,  I 
do  not  think  the  public  would  be  ruined."t  And  on  September  2  he 
wrote  to  his  wife : 

"I  wish  the  Continental  Army  would  at  least  prove  that  something  can  be  done. 
But  this  is  sedition  at  least.     I  am  weary,  however,  I  own,  with  so  much  insipidity." 

Hamilton,  on  October  9,  1788,  wrote |  in  a  letter  already  noticed  to 
Sedgwick  as  follows:  "  The  Lees  and  Adanises  have  been  in  the  habit 
of  uniting,  and  here  may  spring  up  a  cabal  very  embarrassing  to  the 
executive  and  of  course  to  the  administration  of  the  Government. 
Consider  this,  sound  the  realit^^  of  it,  and  let  me  hear  from  you." 

Afterwards  Hamilton,  in  his  letter  on  Adams'  "  public  conduct,"|| 
said  "he  was  represented  to  be  of  the  number  of  those  who  favored 

254  a  V  47  o  b  xxxvii  and  some*  .  .  .  nd  from  Pen. -a  aod  almost  all  from  45B  d  XI. 
222aviii.  For  which  purpose*  .  .  .  may  imagine  6 — r — 1  417  a  xxiv  332  b  xxvili 
to  99  a  XVII.  *  *  *  Nothing  could  serve  the  common  cause  so  much  as  stopping 
these  abominable  intrigues  and  factions  here.  And  as  Mr.  4556  xiv  has  much  208  a 
XXX  423  XXVI  the  2*  .  .  .  a  x*  .  .  .  ix  were  211  xxxii'd  to  128  a  xxxiii  it, 
a  very  happy  consequence  wd  f*     .      .      ."     (Lee  MSS.,  Harvard  College.) 

Among  other  cipher  letters  of  R.  H.  Lee  relating  to  the  congressional  politics  of  this 
critical  period  may  be  mentioned  those  of  September  6,  1778,  and  May  19,  1779. 

As  to  the  bitterness  which  attended  these  conflicts,  see  infra,  ^  209^. 

That  Arthur  Lee  preferred  a  New  England  man  as  commander,  and  that  he  sup- 
posed Richard  H.  Lee  shared  in  the  same  preference,  appears  from  Arthur  Lee's  letter 
to  Colden  of  February  13,  1776,  hereafter  given. 

In  all  Washington's  correspondence  there  is  no  such  strong  expression  of  disap- 
proval as  that  applied  to  Richard  H.  Lee  in  a  letter  to  Madison  of  October  10,  1787. 
(2  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  443. 

*  John  Adams  to  Greene,  June  22, 1776,  9  John  Adams'  Works,  404. 

t  1  John  Adams'  Works,  263;  1  Greene's  Life  of  Greene,  263. 

tS  Lodge's  Hamilton,  198.  See,  for  subsequent  correspondence,  supra,  ^  4  /<; 
infra,  ^  129  Jf,  where  the  character  of  Adams  is  discussed  more  fully. 

II  6  Hamilton's  Works,  by  Lodge,  393. 

282 


ciTAP.  I  ]  Washington's  strkngth.  [§  12. 

the  enlistment  of  our  troops  annually,  or  for  short  periods,  rather  than 
for  the  term  of  the  war;  a  blind  and  infatuated  policy,  directly  con- 
trary to  the  urgent  recommendation  of  General  Washington,  and  which 
had  nearly  proved  tlie  rnin  of  our  cause.  He  was  also  said  to  have 
advocated  the  project  of  appointing  yearly  a  new  commander  of  the 
army;  a  project  which  in  any  service  is  likely  to  be  attended  with 
more  evils  than  benefits,  but  which  in  ours,  at  the  period  in  question, 
was  chimerical  from  the  want  of  persons  qualified  to  succeed,  and 
pernicious  from  the  peculiar  fitness  of  the  officer  first  appointed  to 
strengthen,  by  personal  influeuce,  the  too  feeble  cords  which  bound  to 
the  service  an  ill-paid,  ill-clothed,  and  undisciplined  soldiery." 

Tlie  congressional  opposition  to  Washington,  which,  when  he  was  at 
Valley  Forge,  came  so  near  bearing  consequences  the  most  disastrous, 
was  not,  it  must  be  remembered,  based  on  personal  dislike.*  For  him 
John  and  Samuel  Adams t  and  Richard  H.  Lee  expressed  a  personal 
regard  which  it  would  be  impossible  to  distrust.  They  were,  however, 
zealous  adherents  of  a  policy  which  was  not  only  antagonistic  to  that 
of  Washington,  but  which,  had  the^^  succeeded,  would  have  made  it 
impossible  for  Washington  to  have  retained  the  control  of  the  army. 
Washington  was  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  enlistments  and  adequate 
support  of  soldiers  for  the  war,  and  of  the  impolicy  of  i)lacing  in  the 
hands  of  congressional  committees  the  appointment  of  officers  and  the 
determination  of  military  plans.  The  opposition,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  opposed  on  principle  to  schemes  which  they  held  tended  to  buikl 
up  a  regular  army,  urged  that  the  whole  executive  power  of  the  Gov- 
ernment in  war,  as  well  as  in  finance,  should  be  kept  in  congressional 
committees,  and,  confident  in  the  force  of  untrained  enthusiam,  con- 
demned all  strategy  which  savored  in  any  way  of  delay.  The  leaders 
of  this  opposition,  by  preventing  enlistments  for  the  war,  by  holding 
the  great  military  appointments  in  the  hands  of  Congress,  by  refusing 
adequate  compensation  to  soldiers,  had  much  to  do  with  protracting 
the  war.  Had  they  succeeded  at  the  Congress  at  York  in  forcing 
Washington's  resignation,  they  woukl  have  for  the  time  wrecked  not 
only  the  revolutionary  cause,  but  the  cause  of  that  very  liberty  which 
these  very  men  loved  with  such  fierce  ardor. 

His  policy  approved  by  foreign        ^  12.  At  tlic  vcrv  pcriod  iu  which  the  cpithct 

authorities.  ^  •-    ' 

of  "Fabius"  was  applied  to  Washington  by  his 
congressional  opponents,  as  a  mark  of  contempt,  it  was  bestowed  on 
him  in  Europe  as  a  tribute  of  admiration.  Thus,  in  the  very  able  sum- 
mary attributed  to  Burke,  in   the  London  Annual  Register  for  1777, 

*  See  1  Austin's  Life  of  Gerry,  233,  criticisiug  Botta's  statement  to  the  contrary; 
Cf.  Rutledge  to  Jay,  Dec.  5,  1778. 

t  Samuel  Adams'  position  is  fully  exhibited  in  his  life  by  Wells,  in  two  volumes, 
and  in  the  briefer  life  by  Hosmer,  published  in  1887.  His  papers  in  the  Bancroft  Col- 
lection I  have  also  consulted,  and  have  drawn  from  them  several  valuable  extracts. 

283 


§  12.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

where  the  A^merican  campaign  of  that  year  is  discussed,  we  have  the 
followiug : 

''By  a  few  well  concerted  and  spirited  actions  was  Philadelphia  saved,  Pennsylvania 
freed  from  danger,  the  Jerseys  nearly  recovered,  and  a  victorions  and  far  snperior 
army  reduced  to  act  npon  the  defensive,  and  for  several  months  restrained  within 
very  narrow  and  inconvenient  limits.  These  actions  and  the  sudden  recovery  from 
the  lowest  state  of  weakness  and  distress,  to  become  a  formidable  enemy  in  the  field, 
raised  the  character  of  General  Washington  as  a  commander  very  high  both  in 
Europe  and  America ;  and,  with  his  preceding  and  subsequent  conduct  serve,  alto- 
gether to  give  a  sanction  to  that  appellation,  which  is  now  jiretty  generally  applied 
to  him,  of  the  American  Fabius.'' 

"Thus,"  says  an  English  author  of  strong  tory  sympathies,  after  dis- 
cussing AYashington's  re-occupation  of  I^ew  Jersey  in  1776,  "the  cam- 
paign of  1776  conchuled,  and  the  review  aftbrds  few  motives  of  satis- 
faction; the  progress  of  the  British  arms  was  arrested  and  the  result 
of  previous  successes  ravished  from  their  grasp  by  an  enemy  in  every 
respect  inferior."* 

"From  this  first  campaign,"  says  a  leading  French  historian,!  "  could 
be  estimated  the  worth  of  this  man,  a  mixture  of  Fabius  and  Epam- 
inondas;  resembling,  as  has  been  so  well  said,  *  *  *  those  monuments 
whose  greatness  does  not  impress  one  at  the  first  glance,  precisely  on 
account  of  the  perfect  harmony  of  their  proportions  and  because  no  part 
astonishes  the  eye.  'The  most  rational  of  great  men,'  he  was  truly  the 
personification  of  the  most  rationalistic  of  nations;  and  his  august  good 
sense,  to  use  the  happy  expression  of  one  of  onr  contemporaries,  was 
only  the  distinctive  quality  of  the  Anglo-Saxons  carried  to  sublimity."  | 

"The  moral  effect  of  Washington's  successes"  (in  December,  1777), 
says  Lord  Mah on, §  "were  felt  throughout  the  United  States.  In  the 
strong  words  of  one  of  their  own  historians,  it  seemed  like  a  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead.  Washington  himself,  indeed,  had  never  ceased  to 
be  serene  and  self-assured.  In  the  lowest  depths  of  fortune  he  said 
calmly  to  one  of  his  chief  officers  that  he  should  strive  to  the  last,  retir- 
ing, if  need  be,  from  State  to  State  and  from  post  to  post,  and,  if  even 
forced  back  from  all,  maintaining  the  war  beyond  the  Alleghany  Mount- 
ains. But  many  others  who  in  bygone  years  had  bawled  when  he  was 
quiet,  and  who  had  blamed  him  for  being  so,  were  now  wavering  and 
whispering,  wliile  he  continued  firm.  *  *  *  By  the  days  of  Tren- 
ton and  of  Princeton  this  state  of  public  feeling  was  reversed." 

When  this  congressional  opposition  was  at  its  height,  "  nothing," 
as  is  truthfully  said  by  Lecky,||  "except  the  great  influence,  the  admi- 
rable moderation  and  good  sense  and  the  perfect  integrity  of  Washing- 
ton could  have  restrained  the  army  from  open  revolt.    The  men  who 

*  2  Adolphus'  History  of  England,  :389. 

tTheod.  Fabas,  Encyclopedic  Nouvelle,  art.  Washiugton. 

t  2  Martin's  Decline  of  French  Monarchy,  379. 

^  6  Mahon's  History  of  England,  135;  Eng.  ed.  of  1851,203 

II  4  Lecky's  History  of  England,  249. 

284 


CHAP.  I.]  WASHINGTON'S    STRENGTH.  [§  12. 

• 

bad  borne  the  whole  brunt  and  burden  of  the  war,  who  had  shown  in 
many  instances  the  most  admirable  patriotism  and  self-sacrifice,  found 
themselves  reduced  to  penury,  and  overwhelmed  with  debts,  be(;ause 
the  States  evaded  or  neglected  the  obligations  which  were  imposed  upon 
them,  and  the  belief  was  being  generally  spread  among  them  that  as 
soon  as  the  i^eace  had  made  them  no  louger  necessary  they  would  be 
cheated  of  what  \vas  due  to  them.  Congress,  after  a  long  period  of  vacil- 
lation, had  in  October,  1780,  at  length  pledged,  by  resolution,  to  give 
the  American  ofticers  half  pay  for  life,  and  by  this  measure  alone  had 
prevented  the  army  from  disbanding.  The  pledge  was  binding  upon 
the  nation  as  the  dearest  and  most  sacred  obligation  of  honor,  but  was 
it  likely  that  it  Avould  be  observed*?  It  had  been  carried  in  spite  of 
strong  opposition.  The  New  England  patriots  were  fiercely  hostile  to 
half  i)ay  as  savoring  of  the  abuses  of  a  monarchy  and  tending  to  estab- 
lish a  military  caste.  *  *  *  [t  was  with  great  difiiculty  and  by  great 
management  that  Washington  could  in  some  degree  appease  the  storm, 
while  the  fact  that  he  had  himself  refused  all  reward  for  his  services 
gave  him  a  special  weight  in  pleading  the  cause  of  his  soldiers.  Tbe 
promised  half  pay  was  found  to  be  so  nnpopular  in  several  States  that 
it  would  have  been  impossible  to  vote  it,  so  it  was  agreed  to  commute 
it  for  a  gross  sum  equal  to  five  years'  pay,  and,  in  spite  of  a  scream  of 
indignation  from  I^ew  England,  the  requisite  majority  of  the  States 
was  at  last  induced  to  secure  that  this  should  be  paid  at  the  end  of  the 
war."  * 

*  See  1  Sparks'  Wasliingtou,  385-392. 

To  Pickeriu<^'8  statement,  as  giveu  iu  a  x)rior  section,  may  be  opposed  that  of  Gen- 
eral Sir  William  Howe,  in  his  speech  in  the  Honse  of  Commons  on  April  22,  1779,  when 
he  undertook  to  explain  why,  with  a  vastly  superior  force,  he  was  bafHed  in  all  liis 
movements  by  Washington ; 

"  As  I  have  been  blamed  for  not  marching  (in  the  prior  summer  campaign)  before 
I  left  Jersey  to  attack  General  Washington,  posted  at  Middlebrook,  I  must  beg 
leave  to  trouble  the  committee  with  a  few  words  upon  that  point.  To  have  attacked 
General  Washington  in  that  strong  post  I  must  necessarily  have  made  a  considerable 
circuit  of  the  country  ;  and  having  no  prospect  of  forcing  him,  I  did  not  think  it 
advisable  to  loose  so  much  time  as  must  havdbeen  employed  upon  that  march  duriug 
the  intense  heat  of  the  season.  *  *  *  Persons  of  some  authority,  I  am  told,  have 
said  '  that  the  army  ought  to  have  gone  into  New  England ;'  others  that  '  it  ought  to 
have  gone  up  Hudson's  River.'  Permit  me  to  examine  the  propriety  of  both  these 
opinions  by  considering  what  would  hjive  been  the  consequences  if  either  of  them 
had  been  adopted.  Suppose,  in  the  first  place,  it  had  gone  to  New  England  ;  would 
that  measure  have  led  to  a  conclusion  of  the  war?  I  think  not;  for,  sir,  wherever 
the  main  body  of  our  army  had  gone,  there  most  assuredly  would  General  Wash- 
ington have  gone  also.  But  that  he  would  have  avoided  a  general  action  I  am 
authorized  to  say,  not  only  from  his  constant  uniform  conduct  in,  that  respect  (and  in 
ivliich  no  doiiht  he  acted  jndicionshj),  but  also  from  this  obvious  reason :  He  know  wo 
could  have  kept  any  part  of  Connecticut  in  the  winter,  except  one  or  two  places 
upon  the  coast  of  the  sound.  *  *  *  The  defense  of  Philadelphia  was  an  object 
which  I  justly  concluded  would  engage  the  whole  of  his  attention.  It  was  incum- 
bent on  him  to  risk  a  battle  to  preserve  that  capital.  And  as  my  opinion  has  always 
been  that  the  defeat  of  the  rebel  regular  army  is  the  surest  road  to  peace,  /  invaria 

285 


§  13.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

Washington's  strength  at  ^  13.    NotwithstailcliDg   the  OppOSltioil  tO  Lis  pol- 

home.  .    .  ,  j_-  J 

icy  in  Congress,  an  opposition  always  active  and 
sometimes  successful,  Washington  had  with  him  almost  in  a  body  the 
army  and  the  people  of  all  sections  of  the  country,  taking  them  as  a 
whole.  It  was  a  critical  period;  for  had  there  been  less  grandeur  about 
him,  and  less  confidence  in  the  principles  of  republicanism  for  which 
he  had  taken  up  arms,  his  assumption  of  supreme  authority  at  the 
time  when  measures  he  deemed  essential  were  thwarted,  and  the  rev- 
olution thus  endangered,  would  have  been  sustained  by  the  army  and 
by  a  dominant  majority  of  the  people.  It  was  his  abstinence  from  this 
exercise  of  prerogative  which,  in  connection  with  his  other  transcend- 
ent qualities,  drew  to  him  not  merely  the  reverence,  but  the  love  of  his 
country,  which  secured  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  over  the  delib- 
erations leading  to  which  he  presided,  and  whicli  gave  him  a  unanimous 

blif  imrsucd  the  most  lyrohahle  means  of  forcing  its  commander  to  action  under  circumstances 
the  leant  hazardous  to  the  royal  army ;  for  eveu  a  victory,  attended  by  a  heavy  loss  of  men 
on  our  part,  would  have  given  a  fatal  check  to  tlie  progress  of  the  war  and  might  hare  been  irre- 
parable.^^ To  carry  the  forts  in  the  Highlands,  supposing  a  northern  expedition  had 
been  determined  on,  ''would  probably  have  cost  a  considerable  number  of  men, 
defended,  as  they  would  have  been,  by  General  Washiugton's  whole  force.  But,  these 
forts  being  carried,  how  would  the  enemy  have  acted "?  In  one  of  these  two  ways :  He 
would  either  have  put  himself  between  me  and  New  York  or  between  me  and  the  north- 
ern army."  Of  success  at  the  battle  of  Brandy  wine  he  has  not  much  to  say,  except 
that  "to  bring  the  enemy  to  an  action  was  my  object,  and  being  confident  that 
General  Washington  was  studious  to  avoid  it,  unless  under  most  favorable  circum- 
stances, some  art  and  some  hazard  was  necessary  to  accomplish  my  purpose."  Of 
Washington's  position  at  Valley  Forge,  when  with  a  body  of  famished  and  half- 
clad  troops  he  kept  at  bay  a  British  army  four  times  its  size  and  in  perfect  condition, 
Howe  uses  language  very  different  from  that  employed  by  the  congressional  critics  in 
the  momentous  session  at  York  :  "  The  entrenched  situation  of  the  enemy  at  Valley 
Forge,  twenty-two  miles  from  Philadelphia,  did  not  occasion  any  difficulties  so  press- 
ing as  to  justify  an  attack  upon  that  strong  post  during  the  severe  weather"  (although, 
the  river  being  closed,  it  almost  invested  Philadelphia,  cutting  off  provisions  and  for- 
age) ;  ''and  though  everything  was  prepared  with  that  intention,  I  judged  it  impru- 
dent, until  the  season  should  afford  a  prospect  of  reaping  the  advantages  that  ought 
to  have  resulted  from  success  in  that  measure  ;  but  having  good  information  in  the  spring 
that  the  enemy  had  strengthened  the  caynp  by  additional  works,  and  being  certain  of 
moving  him  from  thence  when  tbe  campaign  should  open,  I  dropped  all  thoughts  of 
an  attack."  (20  Parliamentary  History,  089,  691-693,  purporting  to  be  taken  ''from 
the  original  edition  prepared  for  the  press  by  Sir  William  Howe."  A  second  edition 
of  tills  narrative,  published  in  1780,  is  in  the  Library  of  the  Department  of  State.) 

"The  battles  of  Brandy  wine  and  Germantown,  for  instance,  were  lost  by  Wash- 
ington, yet  the  effect  was  to  coop  up  the  victorious  British  army  in  Philadelphia, 
where,  enjoying  its  festivities,  neither  officers  nor  men  could  stir  out  of  the  city 
limits  except  under  heavy  guard,  and  where  the  desertions  of  six  months  were  greater 
than  the  American  losses  by  death  in  the  two  prior  defeats.  The  closeness  of  the  siege 
is  illustrated  by  a  statement  of  the  Earl  of  Carlisle,  one  of  the  British  commissioners, 
written  from  Philadelphia  on  June  10:  "This  is  market  day,  and  to  protect  the  peo- 
ple bringing  in  provisions,  which  otherwise  they  would  not  dare  to  do,  large  detach- 
ments, to  the  amount  of  above  two  thousand  men,  are  sent  forward  into  the  country. 
We  also  profiled  by  this  safeguard,  and  I  attended  tbe  general,  Sir  Henry  Clinton,  as 
far  as  Germantown.'^   (3  George  Selwyn  and  his  Contemporaries,  282.)    This  shows  that 


CHAP,  i.j  Washington's  strength.  [§  13. 

vote  wlieu  uained  as  President.  English  critics  bave  lately  spoken  of 
Liiu  as  possessing  in  perfection  the  qualities  of  an  English  gentleman, 
contrasting  him  with  his  opponent,  George  III,  who  is  not  now  sup- 
posed to  have  possessed  those  characteristics.  lUit  it  would  be  difii- 
cult  to  find  in  revolutionary  times — which  are  the  only  times  to  which 
in  such  a  case  we  could  appeal — any  English  gentleman  to  whom  Wash- 
ington could  be  likened.  Fairfax,  in  the  wars  against  Charles  I,  aban- 
doned, from  irresolution,  the  control  of  a  revolution  which  he  might 
have  so  molded  as  to  have  establislied  constitutional  liberty.  Falk- 
land threw  away  liis  life  in  battle  because  he  no  longer  felt  any  enthu- 
siasm for  either  of  the  combatants  between  whom  the  battle  was  waged. 
Cromwell,  with  a  more  daring  military  genius  than  Washington,  was 
imposed  upon  by  cant,  if  he  did  not  designedly  use  cant  to  impose  on 
others,  while  by  his  own  arbitrary  action  towards  Parliament  heprecip- 

the  British  occup;itiou  did  not  extend  five  miles  from  the  center  of  the  city.  (See 
Infra,  ^  21  ff,  as  to  British  conduct  at  Philadelphia.) 

In  the  "History  of  the  American  War,  by  C.  Stedman,  who  served  under  Sir  W. 
Howe,  Sir  H.  Clinton,  and  the  Marquis  Coruwallis"— a  work  of  high  military  author- 
ity, though  influenced  by  friendly  feelings  towards  Corn wallis— the  writer  pays  high 
tribute  to  the  tact  and  courage  shown  by  Washington  in  the  surprise  at  Trenton,  in 
his ''judicious"  subsequent  Jersey  campaign,  and  the  "  wisdom  and  activity"  gen- 
erally shown  by  him,  i,  291.  "In  almost  all  the  general  actions  to  the  northward 
the  troops  under  Sir  William  Howe  were  superior  in  number  to  those  under  General 
Washington."  His  success  against  these  odds  is  attributed  to  the  combination  in  his 
character  of  prudence  and  courage. 

"Washington,  the  dictator,  has  shown  himself  both  a  Fabius  and  a  Caraillus.  His 
march  through  our  lines  is  allowed  to  have  been  a  prodigy  of  generalship."  (Walpole 
to  Mason,  March  28,  1877  ;  6  Cunningham's  Walpole,  423.  See  also  Walpole  to  Mason, 
Feb.  27,  1777,  id.,  417,  as  to  the  high  opinion  of  Washington's  strategy  then  prevalent 
in  England.) 

"No  nobler  figure,"  says  Greene,  in  his  "History  of  the  English  People,"  iv,  254, 
"  ever  stood  in  the  forefront  of  a  nation's  life.  Washington  was  grave  and  courteous 
in  address ;  his  manners  were  simple  and  unpretending ;  his  silence  and  the  serene 
calmness  of  his  temper  spoke  of  a  perfect  self-mastery.  But  there  was  little  in  his 
outer  bearing  to  reveal  the  grandeur  of  soul  which  lifts  his  figure  out  of  the  smaller 
passions,  the  meaner  impulses,  of  the  world  about  him.  *  *  *  It  was  only  as  the 
weary  fight  went  on  that  the  colonists  discovered,  however  slowly  and  imperfectly, 
the  greatness  of  their  leader,  his  clear  judgment,  his  heroic  endurance,  his  silence 
under  difficulties,  his  calmness  in  the  hour  of  danger  or  defeat,  the  patience  with 
which  he  waited,  the  (piickness  and  hardness  with  which  he  struck,  the  lofty  and 
serene  sense  of  duty  that  never  swerved  from  its  task  through  resentment  or  jealousy  ; 
that  never,  through  war  or  peace,  felt  the  touch  of  a  meaner  ambition,  that  knew  no 
aim  save  of  guarding  the  freedom  of  his  fellow-countrymen,  and  no  personal  longing 
save  that  of  returning  to  his  own  fireside  when  their  freedom  was  secured." 

In  the  same  very  able  work  are  the  following  lines,  which  may  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration in  connection  with  Pickering's  criticisms  on  Brandy  wine  and  Valley  Forge. 
"  The  rout  of  his  little  army  of  seven  thousand  men  at  Brandywine  forced  Washington 
to  abandon  Philadelphia,  and,  and  after  a  bold  but  unsuccessful  attack  on  his  vic- 
tors, to  retire  into  winter  quarters  on  the  banks  of  the  Schuylkill,  ivhere  the  uncon- 
querable resolve  with  which  he  nerved  his  handful  of  beaten  and  half-starved  troops  to  face 
Mowe's  army  in  their  camp  at  Valley  Forge  is  the  noblest  of  his  triumphs." 

287 


§  14.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

itated  the  Stuart  restoration.  In  the  uprisiug  agaiust  James  II  were 
eugaged  inaoy  eminent  men,  to  whom  America  as  well  as  England  owes 
a  great  debt;  yet  on  even  some  of  the  purest  of  these  rests  the  charge  of 
a  furtive  i)recantionary  correspondence  with  the  exiled  dynasty.  Wash- 
ington, on  the  other  hand,  stands  far  in  the  front,  not  only  of  his  own 
country,  but  of  the  country  from  which  his  family  came.  In  him  there 
was  none  of  the  irresolution  of  Fairfax,  nor  the  enervating  despair  of 
Falkland,  nor  Cromwell's  subjection  of  principle  to  power,  nor  the  tor- 
tuous hedging  policy  of  the  revolutionists  of  1088.  ('ome  what  might, 
he  would  never  surrender  until  independence  was  achieved;  never  till 
a  good  government  was  secured;  never  would  treat  with  Britain  except 
on  the  basis  of  independence.  Unique  at  once  in  majesty,  in  devotion 
to  principle,  in  military  capacity  peculiarly  suited  to  the  work  he  under- 
took, of  spotless  integrity,  of  nndanuted  courage,  of  rectitude  no  oppo- 
sition could  swerve,  and  of  fortitude  no  disasters  could  overcome ;  at 
once  liberative  and  constructive,  completing  as  the  object  of  his  anibi- 
tion  not  merely  the  overthrow  of  a  bad  government,  but  the  establish- 
ment of  a  good  government,  he  was  recognized  then  by  the  people  at 
large,  as  he  has  been  recognized  ever  since,  as  embodying  in  its  most 
perfect  sense  the  true  spirit  of  righteous  revolution  as  well  as  the  high- 
est type  of  noble  manhood. 

^  fi"uanL°^i?be°  1"^^^^^  §  ^^'  ^'^  ^attcrs  financial  there  was  in  the  Con- 

tinental Congress  the  same  conflict  between  the 
merely  "liberative"  and  the  "constructive"  schools — between  the  school 
of  impulse  and  the  school  of  system — as  there  was  in  matters  military. 
For  some  time  Congress  managed  the  finances  of  the  country  by  com- 
mittees, whose  composition  varied  from  month  to  month,  and  which, 
with  no  concrete  responsibility,  had  no  settled  views  ;  sometimes  hold- 
ing to  the  importance  of  rigorous  taxation  and  of  hard  money  as  a  basis 
of  credit;  sometimes  maintaining  that  all  that  is  necessary  in  order  to 
obtain  unlimited  funds  is  to  issue  an  unlimited  amonnt  of  paper  money; 
confident,  so  those  advocating  this  course  were,  that  the  certain  ultimate 
success  of  the  revolution  would  keep  this  paper  up  to  par.  At  first  the 
adherents  of  this  view,  consisting  in  the  main  of  members  who  opposed 
the  military  policy  of  Washington  and  the  diplomatic  policy  of  I  ranklin, 
carried  the  day.  But  it  began  at  last  to  be  clear  that  the  country,  the 
solvenc3^  of  which  a  vigorous  system  of  taxation  could  have  secured, 
was  becoming  bankrui^t,  and  that  its  paper  money  was  rapidly  sinking 
in  value.  A  department  of  finance  was  then  moved  for,  and,  after  stren- 
uous opposition,  at  last  established,  and  on  March  13,  1781,  Uobert 
Morris  was  placed  at  its  head.  In  administrative  experience,  in  com- 
bined wisdom  and  boldness  of  action,  in  familiarity  with  the  laws  of 
finance,  in  general  capacity  for  the  post,  no  one  so  competent  could  be 
found;  and  to  his  untiring  and  effective  labors  the  correspondence  in 
288 


CHAP.  I.]  CONFLICT    AS    TO    DIPLOMACY.  [§  15. 

the  tbllowiiig  pa|;e8  bear  witness.*  He  started  with  the  position  that 
on  taxation,  full  and  equal,  nuist  the  country  depend  for  its  ordinary 
income;  that  until  it  showed  its  readiness  to  impose  such  taxation  it 
couhl  uot  either  honorably  or  successfully  borrow;  that  the  issue  of 
paper  money  must  be  stopped,  and  that  a  national  bank  should  be  es- 
tablished to  equalize  exchanges  and  meet  sudden  governmental  exi- 
gencies. To  the  comparative  success  of  his  administration,  in  the 
face  of  an  opposition  the  most  bitter,t  is  the  final  triumph  of  the  Revo- 
lution to  be  largely  attributed.  Our  income  from  taxation  was  greatly 
increased,  the  bank  was  prosperous,  and  France,  encouraged  by  this, 
continued  to  make  loans  and  forward  supplies,  without  which  the  cam- 
paign 6f  1781-'82  could  uot  have  been  effectively  conducted.f 

Similar  conflict  as  to  dipio-        §  15^   Ainong  the  Settled  rules  of  dii)lomacy 

luacy.  i  o  L  x/ 

are  the  following : 

(1)  An  envoy  is  not  to  be  pressed  on  a  foreign  court  by  which  it  is 
understood  he  will  not  be  received. 

(2)  Even  between  sovereigns  who  are  politically  equal  great  delicacy 
of  diplomatic  address  is  required.  We  all  know  how  much  resistance 
an  overbearing  manner  produces;  and  numerous  instances  exist  in 
political  history  in  which  demands,  which  if  couched  in  terms  of  kind- 
liness might  have  been  conceded,  have  excited  the  most  vehement 
popular  resentment  when  roughly  made.  We  remember  how  deeply 
Canning's  sarcasms  cut  into  the  American  people,  and  bow  much  our 
relations  with  England  were  imperilled  by  the  dictatorial  manners  of 
British  ministers  at  Washington  before  the  w ar  of  1812 ;  and  we  have 
recently  been  reminded  by  Kinglake  how  much  the  French  and  English 
Crimean  alliance  depended  on  the  tact  and  courtesy  of  the  English 
minister  at  Paris  and  the  French  minister  at  London. 

But  to  diplomacy  as  a  system  there  was  the  same  antagonism  in  Con- 
gress as  there  was  to  war  as  a  system  and  to  finance  as  a  system.  On 
the  one  side  it  was  maintained  that  our  relations  with  foreign  nations 
ought  to  be  freed  from  the  artificial  shackles  which  international  law 
had  imposed,  and  that  we  should  approach  them  with  blunt  simplicity, 
demanding  not  only  recognition,  but  aid.  In  other  words,  " militia '^ 
diplomatists,  to  use  John  Adams'  illustration,  "sometimes  gain  victo- 
ries over  regular  troops,  even  by  departing  from  the  rules." ||  "  I  have 
long  since  learned,"  he  adds,  "  that  a  man  may  give  offense  to  a  court 
to  which  he  is  sent  and  yet  succeed."  ''No  man,"  he  says  afterwards, 
'•will  ever  be  pleasing  at  a  court  in  general  who  is  not  depraved  in  his 

*  See  index,  title  Morris. 

tSee  A.  Lee  to  Samuel  Adams,  Mss.,  Aug.  6,  1782.     As  sustaining  him,  see  Wash- 
ington to  Morris,  Mar.  8,  1783;  Jay  to  Morris,  July  28,  1783. 
t  As  to  Morris  personally,  see  infra,  $  183. 
II  Adams  to  Livingston,  Feb.  21,  1782,  infra, 

289 
19  WH 


§  16.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

morals  or  warped  from  your  interests."*  It  was  iu  cooformity  with 
this  conviction  that  Adams,  iu  the  summer  of  1780,  being  in  Paris  as 
a  peace  commissioner  but  not  as  minister  to  France,  addressed  to  Ver- 
gennes  letters  of  such  rugged  animadversion  as  to  lead  to  an  entire 
cessation  of  correspondence  between  these  two  eminent  men.f 
Franklin's  explanation  was  as  follows: 

"Mr.  Adams  thinks  that  America  has  been  too  free  in  expressions  of  gratitude 
to  France — for  that  she  is  more  obliged  to  us  than  we  to  her — and  that  we  should 
show  spirit  in  our  application.  I  apprehend  that  he  mistakes  his  grounds,  and  that 
this  court  is  to  be  treated  with  decency  and  delicacy.  The  king,  a  young  and  vir- 
tuous prince,  has,  I  am  persuaded,  a  pleasure  in  reflecting  on  the  generous  benevo- 
lence of  the  action  in  assisting  an  oppressed  people,  and  proposes  it  as  a  part  of  the 
glory  of  his  reign.  I  think  it  right  to  increase  this  pleasure  by  our  thankful  ac- 
knowledgments, and  that  such  expression  of  gratitude  is  not  only  our  duty  but  our 
interest.  A  different  conduct  seems  to  me  what  is  not  only  improper  and  unbecom- 
ing, but  what  may  be  hurtful  to  us.  Mr.  Adams,  on  the  other  hand,  who  at  the  same 
time  means  our  welfare  and  interest  as  much  as  I  or  any  man  can  do,  seems  to  think 
a  little  apparent  stoutness  and  a  greater  air  of  iudependenee  and  boldness  in  our 
demands  will  procure  us  more  ample  assistance.  It  is  for  the  Congress  to  judge  and 
regulate  their  affairs  accordingly."    (Franklin  to  Congress,  Aug.  9,  1780.) 

Insistence  on  sending  minis-        §  ig.  The  impetuosity  which  prompted  mili' 

ters  to  all  foreign  courts.  *  r  ^  j.  i. 

tary  campaigns  without  regard  to  the  rules  of 
war  prompted  diplomatic  campaigns  without  regard  to  the  rules  of 

*  Adams  to  Gerry,  Sept.  3,  1783,  infra. 

t  The  late  Richard  H.  Dana,  iu  a  note  on  the  character  of  his  grandfather,  Francis 
Dana,  thus  speaks  of  this  difficulty : 

''Mr.  Adams,  years  afterwards,  in  vindicating  his  course,  says:  '  I  had  the  advice 
of  Chief-Justice  Dana,  then  with  rae  as  secretary  of  the  legation  for  peace,  to  every 
clause  and  word  of  the  whole  correspondeuce.'  *  *  *  jyjj.^  Dana  said,  '  The  count 
neither  wrote  like  a  gentleman  himself  nor  treated  me  like  a  gentleman,  and  it  was 
indispensably  necessary  that  we  should  show  him  that  we  had  some  understanding 
and  some  feeling.'"     (R.  H.  Dana,  1  Penu.  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  86.) 

The  letters  which  Adams  at  that  time  (the  summer  of  178U)  addressed  Vergennes  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  him  that  "  we  had  some  understanding  and  some  feeling," 
■were,  it  must  be  repeated,  sent  when  Franklin  was  the  sole  minister  accredited  to 
France  from  the  United  States,  and  when  Adams  was  in  Paris  as  a  peace  commis- 
sioner, without  any  diplomatic  connection  with  France.  The  last  of  these  letters,  as 
given  hereafter,  under  date  of  July  27,  1780,  is  an  address  of  advice,  iu  which,  after 
bluntly  denying  the  truth  of  Vergennes'  statement  that  the  French  king  had  given 
certain  aid  to  the  American  cause  without  being  solicited  by  Congress,  it  is  said : 

"  I  am  determined  to  omit  no  opportunity  of  communicating  my  sentiments  to  your 
excellency  upon  everything  that  appears  to  me  of  importance  to  the  common  cause 
in  which  I  can  do  it  with  propriety.  And  the  communications  shall  be  direct  in  per- 
son or  by  letter  to  your  excellency,  without  the  intervention  of  any  third  person."  In 
other  words,  aside  from  the  tutorial  tone  by  which  the  letter  is  marked,  Vergennes 
is  informed  that  Adams  proposes  to  corresi)Oud  with  him  on  public  affairs  without  the 
intervention  of  Frankliu,  with  whom  alone  Vergennes,  by  the  rules  of  international 
law,  could  keep  up  a  correspondence  as  to  American  political  affairs.  Vergennes 
replied,  on  July  29,  1780,  as  follows  : 

"  I  have  received  the  letter  which  you  did  me  the  honor  to  write  to  me  on  the  '27th 
of  this  month.     When  I  took  upon  myself  to  give  you  a  mark  of  my  conlideuce  by 

290 


CHAP.  I.]  "militia"  diplomacy.  [§  17. 

diplomacy.  It  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  settled  rule  of  diplomacy  tbat  a 
minister  should  not  be  pressed  upon  a  foreij>ii  court  by  which  it  is  un- 
derstood that  he  will  not  be  received.  To  this  may  be  added  the  rule 
that  applications  for  loans  should,  unless  as  part  of  a  treaty  alliance, 
be  made  through  business  channels.  In  disregard  of  these  rules  the 
majority  of  Congress,  under  the  influence  of  liichard  II.  Lee  and  Samuel 
Adams,  instituted  a  series  of  missions  to  European  courts  for  the  bare 
purpose  of  borrowing  money,  when  the  courts  so  addressed  not  only 
gave  no  intimation  that  they  would  receive  these  envoys,  but  when, 
from  the  nature  of  things,  as  well  as  from  unofficial  intimation,  it  should 
have  been  known  that  such  reception  would  be  refused. 

Objections  to  this  course.  §17.  ^jth  France  there  was  no  difficulty,  as 

France  had  intimated  unofficially  that  such  en- 
voys would  be  received,  at  least  in  a  private  capacity,  France  being 
then  ready  to  take  the  consequence  of  war  with  Britain.  And  this 
reception  was  accorded,  as  we  will  see,  first  to  Silas  Deane,  then  to 
Franklin,  and  then  to  Arthur  Lee. 

Here  Franklin  thought  Congress  should  stop,  saying  that  ministers 
should  not  be  sent  to  sovereigns  without  first  having  some  sort  of  as- 
surance of  recognition  of  the  United  States  as  an  independent  sover- 
eignty, and  that  a  "virgin'^  republic,  as  he  called  it,  should  wait  till 

informiDg  you  of  the  destination  of  Messrs.  de  Ternay  aud  Rochambeau,  I  did  not 
expect  the  animadversion  you  have  thought  it  your  duty  to  make  on  a  passage  of 
my  letter  of  the  20th  of  this  month.  To  avoid  any  further  discussions  of  that  sort, 
I  think  it  my  duty  to  inform  yoa  that,  Mr.  Franklin  being  the  sole  person  who  has 
letters  of  credence  to  the  king  from  the  United  States,  it  is  with  him  only  that  I 
ought  and  can  treat  of  matters  which  concern  them,  and  i)articularly  of  that  which 
is  the  subject  of  your  observations." 

This  closed  the  corresi^oudence.  Franklin  afterwards  (Oct.  8, 1780,)  wrote  to  Adams 
that  if  he  would  say  that  the  expressions  by  which  Vergennes  felt  wounded  ^'  were  the 
eliects  merely  of  inadvertence,  perhaps  you  may  think  it  proper  to  write  something 
for  effacing  the  impressions  made  by  them.  I  do  not  presume  to  advise  yon,  but  men- 
tion it  merely  for  your  consideration.  The  vessel  is  not  yet  gone  which  carries  the 
pax)ers"  (to  America).  To  this  letter,  the  only  reply  made  by  Adams  was  that  he 
had  sent  a  copy  of  the  correspondence  to  Congress  Avithout  connnent.  Neither  to 
Vergennes  nor  to  Franklin  did  he  utter  a  word  softening  the  rebukes  uttered  by 
him  in  the  letters  of  which  Vergennes  had  complained;  aud  however  much  we  may 
censure  him  for  want  of  wisdom  aud  kindliness,  it  is  impossible  not  to  be  struck 
with  the  boldness  ho  displayed  in  pursuing  this  peculiar  course.  Congress  was  in 
sore  pecuniary  straits;  it  had  no  money  to  carry  on  the  war,  and  its  resources  for 
the  future  were  exhausted.  Without  foreign  loans  it  could  do  nothing,  and  Adams 
by  this  time  was  convinced,  by  his  own  want  of  success  in  Holland,  that  this  aid 
could  come  only  from  France.  In  Franco  Vergennes,  so  far  as  concerned  foreign 
relations,  was  supreme.  It  required  no  little  courage  on  Adams'  part,  whatever  wo 
may  think  of  the  wisdom  and  delicacy  of  the  procedure,  for  him  to  tell  Vergennes 
that  he  distrusted  and  disbelieved  him.  But  his  course  was  very  unwise  as  well  as 
ungracious,  aud,  had  he  been  then  sole  minister  to  Paris,  might  have  broken  up  the 
French  alliance. 

291 


§19.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

there  was  some  such  recognition  before  thrusting  embassies  on  foreign 
courts  with  demands  for  money.* 

Congress  thought  differently.  Arthur  Lee  was  instructed  to  go  to 
Madrid,  with  an  alternate  commission  to  Berlin;  William  Lee  was 
sent  to  Vienna,  Dana  to  St.  Petersburg,  Adams  to  The  Hague,  Izard  to 
Florence,  and  the  instructions  iu  each  case  were  to  demand  uot  only 
recognition,  but  subsidy. 

Impolicy  of  forciuy  this  issue.         §  |3  To  supposc  that  the  arbitrary  sovereigns 

of  Europe  would,  France  excepted,  hurry  to  ac- 
knowledge the  new  republic  which  was  fighting  for  its  independence 
against  the  parent  state,  showed  very  little  knowledge  either  of  diplo- 
matic usage  or  of  existing  political  conditions.  But  there  was  another 
reason  why  the  policy  of  forcing  envoys  on  those  courts  would  fail. 
Kussia,  Prussia,  Sweden,  and  even  Holland  and  Spain,  till  they  were 
driv^en  into  the  war,  were  enjoying  the  enormous  benefits  which  accrued 
to  them  as  neutrals  at  a  time  when  French  and  English  flags  gave  no 
sure  protection  on  the  high  seas.  But  the  moment  any  neutral  sover- 
eign received  American  envoys  his  neutrality  would  be  gone,  for  Britain 
would  at  once  launch  against  him  a  declaration  of  war.  To  force  on 
these  neutral  courts  the  issue  of  recognition  of  the  United  States  by 
this  means  was  not  only  to  insure  the  rejection  of  these  envoys,  but  to 
put  the  United  States  in  the  position  of  an  upstart  intruder,  demanding 
money,  when  its  very  right  to  appear  at  such  courts  was  denied. 

uad  effects  of  sucii diplomacy.        §19.  Ti^e  bad  cffccts  of  "  militia  "  dii^omacy 

were  conspicuous.  Arthur  Lee  was  not  i)ermitted 
to  reach  Madrid,  but  was  stopped  on  the  road ;  and  though  Spain  had, 
before  notice  of  his  visit,  secretly  given  one  million  of  francs  to  Ver- 
geunes  for  American  use,  she  then,  perhaps  alarmed  at  the  position  she 

*  "I  liave  not  yet  chaugcd  the  opiuiou  I  gave  iu  Cougress,  that  a  virgin  State 
should  preserve  its  virgin  character,  and  uot  go  ahont  suitering  for  alliances,  but 
wait  ^vith  decent  dignity  for  the  application  of  others.  I  was  overruled;  x)erhaj>s 
for  the  best."     (Franklin  to  A.  Lee,  Mar.  21,  1777.) 

''Our  credit  and  weight  in  Euroi)e  depend  more  on  what  we  do  than  on  what  we 
say,  and  I  have  long  been  humiliated  with  the  idea  of  our  running  about  from  court 
to  court  begging  for  money  and  friendshii^,  which  are  the  more  withheld  the  more 
eagerly  they  are  solicited,  and  would  perhaps  have  been  offered  if  they  had  not  been 
asked.  The  supposed  necessity  is  our  only  excuse.  The  proverb  says,  '  God  helps 
those  that  help  themselves,'  and  the  world,  too,  in  this  sense,  is  very  godly."  (Frank- 
lin to  Adams,  Oct.  2,  1780. ) 

"The  United  States  would  blush  to  think  that  the  history  of  any  nation  might 
represent  them  as  humble  suppliants  for  their  favor."  (Livingston  to  Dana,  Mar.  3, 
1782. ) 

Against  this  "rage  for  treaties"  Gouveueur  Morris  also  took  decided  ground,  hold- 
ing "that  our  true  course  Avas  to  go  our  own  gait,  without  seeking  outside  favor, 
until  we  had  shown  ourselves  able  to  keep  our  own  place  among  nations,  when  the 
recognition  would  come  without  asking.     (Roosevelt's  Morris,  95.) 

292 


CHAP,  I.]  '^ militia"  diplomacy.  [^  19. 

would  bo  placed  in  by  an  American  envoy  appearing  at  Madrid,  not 
only  refused  to  give  anything  to  Arthur  Lee,  but  required  hini  to  depart. 
Berlin  he  succeeded  in  reaching,  but  merely  in  a  private  capacity;  and 
there  his  presence  was  chiefly  distinguished  by  the  theft  of  liis  papers, 
by  which  important  information  was  obtained  by  the  British  ministry^ 
and  the  Prussian  king  was  given  the  opportunity  to  make  on  the  pro- 
cedure some  of  those  cynical  criticisms  in  the  framing  of  which  he  was 
so  great  a  master.*  William  Lee  then,  under  Arthur  Lee's  escort  but 
with  a  separate  commission  of  his  own,  attempted  to  be  received,  but 
was  warned  off  by  the  following  contemptuous  note: 

Schulenherg  to  Arthur  Lee. 
[Translation.] 

"Bkrlin,  Novemher  '28,  1777. 
''Sir  :  As  to  tlio  commission  of  Mr.  William  Leo,  the  king  having  repeatedly  declared 
his  sentiments  respecting  the  actual  difficulties  attending  a  commercial  connection 
with  America,  notwithstanding  his  constant  good  disposition  towards  the  Colonies, 
can  not  possibly  conjecture,  as  circumstances  have  not  changed,  what  proposition 
Mr.  Lee  can  make  more  acceptable  to  his  majesty,  nor  consequently  what  can  be  the 
object  of  his  mission. 

"I  have  the  honor  to  be,  etc., 

"Baron  de  ScnuLENBERa.'U 

Dana  not  only  was  denied  an  official  reception  in  Russia,  but  was 
subjected  to  a  series  of  mortifying  rebuffs,  to  be  hereafter  detiiiled,! 
occupying  there  for  two  years  a  position  as  humiliating  to  himself  as  it 
was  detrimental  to  his  country. 

Adams  was  refused  recognition  in  Holland  until  Holland  was  forced 
by  British  insults  and  encroachments  to  join  in  the  alliance  with  France 
and  the  United  States  against  Great  Britain. 

Izard  never  left  Paris,  and  found  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany  not 
only  unwilling  to  lend  money  to  the  United  States,  but  even  to  recog- 
nize their  existence. 

Each  of  these  missions  was  undertaken  against  the  advice  of  France, 
whose  interests  led  her  to  desire  tl^at  the  United  States  should  obtain 
recognition  and  funds  from  other  powers  than  herself.  France,  there 
is  now  no  question,  did  her  best  to  obtain  recognition  and  funds  for  the 
United  States  from  other  powers ;  but  she  advised  against  the  missions 
to  Vienna,  to  Madrid,  to  Berlin,  and  to  St.  Petersburg,  because  she  felt 
that  at  the  time  diplomatic  appeals  of  this  kind  would  fail. 

There  can  be  now  no  doubt  that  the  cause  of  the  United  States  was 
injured  not  merely  by  the  importunity  but  by  the  indecorous  tone  of 
these  appeals.  Foreign  monarchs,  more  or  less  absolute,  could  not  be 
expected  to  hurriedly  recognize  the  inch^pendence  of  provinces  which 
were  still  in  the  throes  of  war  with  a  sovereign  with  whom  these  mon- 

*  See  infra,  ^  WM,  193. 

t  See  infra,  ^^S  91. 

t  See  infra,  ^  92^'.  ;  and  also  index,  title  Dana. 

293 


§  19.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  I. 

archs  were  at  peace,  and  when  to  these  monarchs  revolution  was  a  word 
in  itself  very  unacceptable.  And  still  less  likely  were  they  to  listen  to 
such  appeals  when  couched  in  ungracious  terms,  and  when  even  to  lis- 
ten to  such  terms  from  an  accepted  envoy  might  involve  them  as  bellig- 
erents in  the  contest,  and  cause  them  to  lose  the  lucrative  commerce 
which  as  neutrals  they  were  industriously  buildnig  up. 

In  other  respects  this  "militia"  system  of  diplomacy  worked  badly. 
It  kept  in  Europe  six  ministers  when  one  (Franklin)  would  not  only 
have  been  sufficient,  but  would  have  been  able,  at  the  only  court  which 
would  then  receive  an  American  envoy,  to  have  served  his  country  far 
more  efficiently^  alone  than  he  did  when  harassed  by  the  presence  of 
five  associates  imbued  with  the  unconciliatory  temper  of  the  "militia'^ 
school.  It  put  the  United  States  to  a  very  great  expense,  which  it 
could  ill  afford,  in  paying  the  salaries  of  this  large  corps ;  and  this  ex- 
pense was  used  as  an  argument  against  these  envoys  when  they  applied 
for  loans  to  be  employed  in  their  support.  But  still  more  disastrous 
was  the  effect  of  this  unnecessary  aggregation  of  envoys  on  the  Paris 
negotiations.  Izard  and  William  Lee  were  in  Paris  without  any  diplo- 
matic occupation,*  though  drawing  their  full  salaries,  and  they  thought 
they  were  entitled  to  be  consulted  by  Franklin  as  to  his  negotiations 
with  France.  In  this  position  they  were  sustained  by  Arthur  Lee. 
This  was  one  of  the  elements  in  the  dissensions  by  which  the  mission 
to  Paris  in  1777-'78  came  near  being  broken  up,  and  the  alliance  with 
France,  on  which  the  United  States  had  then  placed  its  dei)endence, 
subjected  to  a  strain  by  which  it  was  almost  snapped  asunder.t 

*  Infra,  ^  ^  175,  178. 

t  As  to  these  "  dissensions,"  see  infra,  $$  126,  149,  178;  and  index,  titles  Franklin, 
Artbnr  Lee,  etc. 

294 


CHAPTER  II. 


ATTITUDE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TO  FOREIGN  NATIONS. 

Growing  aversion  to  Britain.        §  20.  The  streiigtli  of  tbe  colouists'  affection 

for  tbe  uiotber  country  is  thus  well  stated  by 
a  tbongbtfiil  bistorian  :  * 

"  They  loved  their  mother  country  with  the  love  of  children,  who,  forsaking  their 
homes  under  strong  provocation,  turn  back  to  them  in  thought  when  time  has  blunted 
the  sense  of  injury  with  a  lively  recollection  of  early  associations  and  endearments — 
a  tenderness  and  a  longing  not  altogether  free  from  self-reproach.  To  go  to  England 
was  to  go  home.  To  have  been  there  was  a  claim  to  especial  consideration.  They 
studied  English  history  as  the  beginning  of  their  own,  a  first  chapter  which  all  must 
master  thoroughly  who  would  understand  the  sequel.  England's  literature  was  their 
literature.  Her  great  men  were  their  great  men.  And  when  her  flag  waved  over 
them  they  felt  as  if  the  spirit  which  had  borne  it  in  triumph  over  so  many  bloody 
fields  had  descended  upon  them  with  all  its  inspiration  and  all  its  glory.  They 
gave  English  names  to  their  townships  and  countits,  and  if  a  name  had  been  ground 
enough  to  build  a  pretension  upon,  more  than  one  English  noble  who  already  num- 
bered his  acres  in  the  Old  World  by  thousands  might  have  claimed  tens  of  thousands 
in  the  New.  They  loved  to  talk  of  St.  Paul's  and  Westminster  Abbey,  and  with  the 
Hudson  and  the  Potomac  before  their  eyes  could  hardly  persuade  themselves  that  the 
Thames  was  not  the  first  of  rivers." 

Had  tlie  propositions  of  reconciliation  made  by  tbe  Britisb  Govern- 
ment in  1780-'81  been  made  in  1775,  independence  would  not  bave  been 
declared  in  1776.t 

As  a  mere  m  after  of  political  reasoning  tbe  main  positions  of  tbe 
Declaration  of  Independence  could  not  be  overthrown.  That  declara- 
tion was,  however,  not  in  itself  a  diplomatic  appeal.  It  was  a  recital 
of  prior  appeals,  made  to  and  spurned  by  tbe  parent  sovereign,  tbe 
most  conspicuous  of  which  was  by  Jefferson,  published  in  1774  in  Eng- 
land under  tbe  editorship  of  Burke.  If  there  were  any  documents 
which  might  be  called  diplomatic,  proceeding  from  the  United  States 
to  Great  Britain  prior  to  actual  war,  these  appeals,  with  those  of 
Franklin,  hereafter  given,  might  be  so  considered.  They  were  meant 
in  good  faith.     When  they  asserted  loyalty  to  the  Britisb  crown,  it  was 

*  Greene's  Historical  View  of  the  American  Revolution,  4th  ed.,  5. 

t  ''If  ever  cause  were  just  and  had  a  right  to  success,  it  was  that  of  the  English 
Colonies,  which  rose  in  insurrection  to  become  the  United  States  of  America. 

"Opposi  tiou  in  their  case  preceded  insurrection. 

''Their  opposition  was  founded  on  historic  right  and  on  facts,  on  rational  right  and 
on  ideas."     (5  Gaizot's  History  of  France,  353.) 

295 


§21.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  II. 

because  the  authors  of  these  appeals  felt  such  loyalty ;  when  they 
declared  that  if  the  right  they  claimed  was  refused  it  would  be  main- 
tained by  force,  in  this  also  they  were  in  earnest. 

Arrogance  of  British  tone.  §    21.   The    tOUC    Of  GcorgC    III,    tO    whom    the 

direction  of  British  policy  towards  America  is 
mainly  imputable,  as  we  observe  it  in  his  correspondence  with  Lord 
North,  is,  as  to  Americans,  hard  and  overbearing  throughout.  Not  one 
word  of  tenderness  towards  these  his  subjects  escai3es  from  him.  They 
are  "rebels;'^  they  are  "traitors"  and  "pirates;"  they  are  without 
"courage;"  they  are  never  spoken  of  as  entitled  to  even  the  immuni- 
ties of  civilized  war;  they  are  to  be  " distressed "  by  every  kind  of 
I>redatory  brigandage,  the  more  the  better.  To  appeals  for  consid- 
eration to  American  prisoners  his  ear  was  closed,  and  Stormont,  his 
ambassador  at  Paris,  roughly  answered  a  courteous  application  from 
Franklin  for  exchange  that  he  "could  receive  no  communication  from 
rebels  except  one  of  submission."  Sandwich,  one  of  his  cabinet,  thus 
spoke  of  Americans  in  a  harangue  in  the  house  of  lords,  which  is  thus 
noticed  by  an  English  author : 

"It  was  on  this  occasion  (March  15,  1775)  that  Lord  Sandwich — the  notable  *  Jemmy 
Twitcher' — delivered  that  cruel  and  insolent  tirade  against  the  valor  and  honor  of 
the  American  people  which  more  than  weightier  wrongs,  tended  to  confirm  their 
undying  aversion  to  the  British  aristocracy.  'Suppose,'  he  said,  'the  Colonies  to 
abound  in  men.  Of  what  importance  is  the  fact?  They  are  raw,  undisciplined,  and 
cowardly.  I  wish,  instead  of  forty  or  fifty  thousand  of  these  brave  fellows,  they 
would  produce  at  least  two  hundred  thousand.  The  more  the  better.  The  easier 
would  be  the  conquest.  At  the  siege  of  Louisburg  Sir  Peter  Warren  found  what 
egregious  cowards  they  were.  Believe  me,  my  lords,  the  very  sound  of  a  cannon 
would  send  them  off  as  fast  as  their  feet  would  carry  them.'  "* 

The  Duke  of  Chandos,  in  moving  the  address  of  thanks  in  the  same 
debate,  referred  to  the  "  many  public  and  private  virtues  of  the  sovereign, 
and  the  obstinacy,  baseness,  and  ingratitude  of  his  rebellious  subjects 
in  America;"  and  even  in  the  protest  of  the  minority  it  is  said  not  that 
the  allegation  of  the  cowardice  of  his  majesty's  American  subjects  was 
not  true,  but  that  it  was  not  relevant.  It  is  no  wonder  that  Franklin 
should  have  referred  to  these  statements  of  the  ministerial  position  as  a 
reason  why  submission  on  our  part  would  be  ignominious.* 

Even  by  so  accomplished  and  soldierly  a  man  as  Andre  was  this  tone 

*  1  Jesse's  Mems.  George  III,  591. 

In  a  note  the  same  writer  shows  that  to  the  valor  of  the  American  troops  the  capt- 
ure of  Louisburg  was  almost  exclusively  due.  "They  took  Louisburg  from  the 
French  single-handed,"  so  it  is  said,  adopting  a  speech  of  Hartley,  "without  any 
European  assistance;  as  mettled  an  enterprise  as  any  in  our  own  history;  an  everlast- 
ing monument  of  the  zeal,  courage,  and  perseverance  of  the  troops  of  New  England. 
The  men  themselves  dragged  the  cannon  over  a  morass  which  had  always  been  thought 
impassable,  where  neither  horses  nor  men  could  go,  and  they  carried  the  shot  upon 
their  backs." 

t  See  the  full  reports  in  W^alsh's  Appeal,  90,  (4  to),  92. 

296 


CHAP.  II.]  CASE    AGAINST    GREAT    BRITAIN.  [§  22. 

assumed,  and  it  naturally  would  not  have  been  assumed  by  him  if  not 
likely  to  be  acceptable  to  those  among  whom  he  moved.  We  have 
this  illustrated  in  a  ^Miterary  exercise  ^^  held  in  New  York  on  January 
7,  1779,  in  which  this  gallant  officer  read  a  "  dream  about  the  rebels," 
"  for  which,"  according  to  Kivington's  Royal  Gazette  of  January  23, 
"  he  gained  much  applause  from  the  fair  and  the  bold."* 

Yet  Andre,  from  whom  came  this  paper,  afterwards  so  widely  circu- 
lated, was  a  man  of  refined  training  and  of  artistic  tastes,  which  found 
exercise  in  the  pageantry  of  the  Mischianza,  to  be  presently  noticed, 
and  was,  as  he  afterwards  showed  in  the  treachery  and  tragedy  in  which 
he  took  the  leading  part,  a  soldier  as  courageous  as  he  was  adventurous. 

Barbarity.  §  22.  It  is  witli  much  reluctauce  that  the  toi)ic 

of  British  barbarity  during  the  revolutionary 
war  is  here  taken  up.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  forget  that  most 
of  those  concerned  in  directing  the  Revolution  in  this  country  were 
of  a  common  stock  with  those  who  were  struggling  in  England 
to  put  it  down ;  and  that  it  is  to  England  that  we  owe  our  early  lit- 
erature, and  many  of  those  liberal  principles  which  lie  at  the  founda- 
tion of  our  distinctive  American  system.  It  is  impossible  also  to  forget 
that  in  late  years  our  relations  with  England  have  been  intimate  and 
friendly  ;  that,  aside  from  social  connections,  we  do  more  business  with 
England  and  her  dependencies  than  with  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  and 
that,  as  a  rule,  this  business  is  conducted  with  mutual  confidence  and 

*  111  tlii-s  dream,  wbich  supposes  certain  eiiiiiient  rel)els  to  be  called  into  court  for 
judgment,  "the  first  person  called  upon  was  the  famous  Chief-Justice  McKean,  who 
I  found  had  been  animated  by  the  same  spirit  which  formerly  possessed  the  meraolable 
Jefiries.  I  could  not  but  observe  a  flash  of  indignation  in  the  eyes  of  the  judges  upon 
the  approach  of  this  culprit.  ^  *  *  He  was  condemned  to  assume  the  shape  of  a 
blood-hound.  *  *  *  Tlie  black  soul  of  (William)  Livingston,  which  was  lit  for 
treason,  sacrilege,  and  sjmil,  and  polluted  with  every  species  of  murder  and  in- 
iquity, was  condemned  to  howl  in  the  body  of  a  wolf.  *  *  *  The  President  of 
the  Congress,  Mr.  Jay,  next  appeared  before  the  tribunal,  and  his  trial  was  con- 
ducted with  all  the  solemnity  due  to  so  distinguished  a  character.  I  heard,  with  emo- 
tions of  astonishment  and  concern,  that  in-various  human  forms  he  had  been  remark- 
able for  a  mixture  of  the  lowest  cunning  and  most  unfeeling  barbarity.  *  *  * 
Tlie  court  immediately  thought  fit  to  order  that  this  criminal  should  transmigrate 
into  the  most  insidious  and  most  hateful  of  animals,  a  snake;  but,  to  prevent  his  be- 
ing able  any  longer  to  deceive  and  thereby  destroy,  a  large  set  of  rattles  was  adlKed 
to  his  tail,  that  it  might  warn  mankind  to  shun  so  poisonous  a  being.  The  whole 
Continental  Army  now  pnssed  in  review  before  me.  They  were  forced  to  put  on  the 
shape  of  the  timid  hare,  whose  disposition  they  already  possessed.  With  ears  erect, 
they  seemed  watching  the  first  approach  of  danger,  and  ready  to  fly  even  at  the 
appearance  of  it.  But,  what  was  very  singular,  a  brass  collar  was  afiflxed  to  the  neck 
of  one  of  their  leaders,  on  which  I  saw  distinctly  the  following  line: 

'They  win  the  fight  that  win  the  race,* 

alluding  to  the  maxim  he  had  always  pursued  of  making  a  good  and  timely  retreat." 
The  whole  of  this  paper  is  in  2  Moore's  Diary  Am.  Rev.,  120  ff. 

297 


§22  .]  INTRODUCTION.  [cHAP.  II. 

respect.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  historian  of  the  Kevolution  can 
not  fail  to  be  impressed  with  the  great  prominence  given  by  our  dip- 
lomatists to  the  barbarity  with  which  Britain  conducted  the  war.  This 
barbarity,  as  will  be  seen  by  turniug  to  the  index  with  which  this  vol- 
ume opens,  was  the  subject  of  solemn  report  to  foreign  governments, 
and  to  no  less  solemn  appeals  to  the  British  authorities,  challenging 
them  to  meet  the  charges  made.  The  papers  containing  those  state- 
ments and  appeals  will  be  found  in  the  following  pages;  and  particular 
reference  may  be  made  to  the  letters  of  Jay  to  Morris  of  October  6, 
1776;  of  Franklin  to  Hartley  of  October  14,  1777;  of  the  commissioners 
at  Paris  to  Vergennes  of  January  1,  1779 ;  of  Franklin  to  Hartley  of 
October  14,  1777,  of  September  3,  1778,  of  February  2,  1780;  of  Living- 
ston to  Adams  of  January  9,  1782 ;  of  Livingston  to  Dana  of  March  3, 
1782,  of  May  27,  1782,  of  December  17,  1782. 

Terrible  must  have  been  the  devastations  thus  wrought,  and  cruel  must 
have  been  the  spirit  in  which  they  were  perpetrated,  to  have  induced 
a  man  of  so  judicial  a  temper  and  calm  a  spirit  as  Jay  to  declare  that 
he  would  rather  consign  to  desolation  all  the  southeastern  section  of 
New  York,  embracing  the  city  itself,  and  that  long  belt  of  pleasant 
homes  on  the  Korth  and  East  Rivers,  the  site  where  his  early  days 
had  been  spent  and  where  his  wife's  relatives  and  his  own  were  domi- 
ciled, than  see  it  subjected  to  British  sway.* 

But  we  do  not  rest  on  revolutionary  autliority  for  evidence  of  a  barbar- 
ism which  assumes  a  prominent  position  in  our  history,  because  it  was 
on  the  one  side  a  chief  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  revolutionists  coming 
to  terms  with  the  mother  country,  and  on  the  other  side  one  of  the 
causes  of  the  growth  of  English  opposition  to  the  war.  By  no  class  of 
men  was  this  barbarism  more  fully  known,  by  none  were  its  pernicious 
consequences  more  keenly  felt,  than  by  such  of  the  loyalists  as  were 
not  themselves  participants  in  its  atrocities  and  the  plunder  it  pro- 
duced. Judge  Thomas  Jones,  for  instance,  was  an  eminent  New  York 
colonial  judge,  of  a  distinguished  New  York  family,  a  graduate  of 
Yale  College,  and  a  scholar  of  no  slight  attainments,  the  possessor  of 
a  large  landed  estate,  and  on  principle  strongly  attached  to  the  royal 
cause. 

No  one  knew  better  what  was  going  on  in  that  city  during  British  occu- 
I)ation  than  did  Judge  Jones;  no  one  proved  himself,  by  his  devotion  at 
the  time  and  his  subsequent  sacrifices,  more  loyal  to  the  British  crown; 
there  is  no  one  in  whose  veracity  we  can  more  confide  when  we  come 
to  his  narration  of  facts  with  which  he  was  personally  familiar.  Now, 
Judge  Jones  was  the  author  of  a  History  of  New  York  During  the  Revo- 
lutionary War,  in  two  volumes,  which  was  published  in  1779  by  the 
New  York  Historical  Society,  and  which  is  of  singular  interest  not 
merely  from  its  extrinsic  authority,  but  from  the  intrinsic  proofs  of 
truthfulness  exhibited  by  its  naturalness,  its  circumstantiality,  and  by 
*  See  Jay  to  Morris,  Oct.  6,  1776,  given  iu  full,  infra. 
298 


CHAP.  11.]  CASE    AGAINST    GREAT    BRITAIN.  [§  22. 

the  obviously  sincere  expressions  of  pain  by  wliicli  its  statements  of 
these  atrocities  are  marked.* 

In  volume  I,  pajj^e  137,  we  are  told  that  the  British  troops,  when  quar- 
tered at  Princeton,  ^' among  other  plunder,  robbed  Nassau  Hall  of  its 
library,  its  mathematical  and  ])hilo8ophical  instruments,  and  other  ap- 
purtenances." Upon  the  sackino-  of  the  town  of  New  Haven,  in  Con- 
necticut, by  General  Tryon  in  June,  1779,  Yale  College,  was  plun- 
dered of  its  library,  consisting  of  many  thousand  books,  together 
with  other  valuable  property.  *'  In  the  same  month,  upon  plunder- 
ing and  burning  the  town  of  Norwalk  in  the  same  colony,  under 
the  orders  of  the  same  general  (Howe),  a  most  elegant,  large,  beau- 
tiful, and  well-collected  library,  an  heirloom  belonging  to  the  Mor- 
risaniana  family  iii  the  county  of  Westchester,  which  had  for  safety' 
been  removed  to  Norwalk,  was  pillaged,  carried  to  New  York,  and 
disposed  of  by  the  thieves,  the  robbers,  and  the  idunderers  in  the 
same  manner  as  those  plundered  in  New  York  had  been  before  dis- 

*  III  a  criticism  by  Mr.  Henry  P.  Jolinston  of  Judge  Jones'  History  (N.  Y.,  D.  Ap- 
pleton  &  Co.,  1880),  it  is  said  that  "living  affluently  at  Great  Neck,  Long  Island, 
possessed  also  of  a  largo  estate  in  New  York,  and  related  by  marriage  and  social 
ties  to  few  who  were  not  as  firm  loyalists  as  himself,  he  (Judge  Jones)  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  type  of  the  American  subject  whose  influence  King  George  imagined 
would  bo  strong  enough  to  keep  at  least  the  province  of  New  York  from  drifting  into 
revolt.  From  1769  to  1773  he  had  been  recorder  of  the  city,  wdien  he  was  appointed 
to  succeed  his  father  as  one  of  the  justices  of  the  supreuie  court  of  the  colony,  a  po- 
sition in  the  gift  of  the  royal  governor.  His  associations,  his  otBce,  his  conservative 
mold  combined  to  determine  his  relations  to  the  Revolution."  But  while  those  influ- 
ences and  prejudices,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  he  was  not  in  any  sense  a  party  to 
the  councils  of  the  Revolution,  and  that  what  he  knew  of  revolutionary  action  was 
largely  from  hearsay,  greatly  lessen  the  weight  of  his  charges  against  revolutionary 
leaders,  they  strengthen  his  statements  of  such  misconduct  of  British  officers  as  he 
personally  witnessed,  his  interest  being  closeJy  bound  up  with  the  maintenance  of  the 
British  cause.  It  is  true  that  when  his  history  was  written,  at  the  close  of  the  war, 
he  was  much  embittered  against  the  Howes  and  against  Clinton,  to  whose  misman- 
agement he  charged  many  British  disasters.  But,  allowing  for  this,  his  testimony  as 
to  official  misconduct  on  the  British  side  comes  to  us  with  peculiar  strength,  because 
he  speaks  as  the  representative  of  the  loyalist  aristocracy  of  New  York,  some 
of  whom  were  in  British  service  during  the  occupation,  and  most  of  whom  were 
eye-witnesses  of  tho  circumstances  he  relates.  Jones  was  himself  imprisoned  in 
Connecticut  for  six  months  in  1776,  and  for  six  months  in  1771),  while  during  the 
intervening  period  he  was  in  New  York  under  parol,  and  was  consequently  pre- 
cluded from  taking  an  active  loyalist  part.  But  though  such  was  the  case,  ho  was 
a  social  leader  of  New  York  toryism  during  the  Revolution,  and  gives  us  accuratol^'^ 
the  views  of  that  particular  society  in  which  the  British  officers  in  the  city  dis- 
tinctively moved.     (See  further  criticism  in  6  Mag.  Am.  History,  etc.,  421.) 

In  Galloway's  Cool  Thoughts  on  the  Consequences  of  American  Independence,  pub- 
lished in  London  in  1780  for  the  purpose  of  stirring  up  the  ministry  to  more  vig- 
orous measures,  is  the  following: 

*'The  mode  of  carrying  on  tho  war,  more  cruel  to  friends  than  foes,  added  to  the 
inhumanity  and  treachery  of  this  country  in  not  exerting  its  jjowers  for  their  relief, 
will  not  fail  to  create  permanent  enmity  and  resentments,  and  tho  obligations  of 
gratitude  to  the  nation  which  shall  save  them  from  our  ravages  will  stamp  impres- 
sions never  to  be  effaced." 

299 


§  22.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  II. 

posed  of.  All  this  was  done  with  impunity,  publicly  and  openly.  No 
punishment  was  ever  inflicted  upon  the  plunderers.  No  attempts 
were  made  by  the  British  commanders  to  obtain  restitution  of  the 
stolen  goods,  nor  did  they  ever  discountenance  such  unjustifiable  i)ro- 
ceedings  by  issuing  orders  condemning  such  unmiiitary  conduct  and 
forbidding  it  in  future.  In  short,  from  the  whole  conduct  of  the  army 
during  the  course  of  the  war  it  seemed  as  if  the  suppression  of  a 
dangerous  rebellion  was  but  a  secondary  consideration.  The  war,  in 
fact,  was  not  levied  at  rebellion,  but  at  the  treasury  of  Great  Britain; 
at  his  majesty's  loyal  subjects  within  the  lines;  indiscriminately  against 
all  persons  wherever  the  army  moved;  against  erudition,  religion,  and 
literature  in  general.  Public  libraries  were  robbed,  colleges  ruined, 
and  churches  of  all  denominations  burned  and  destroyed  ;  while  plun- 
der, robberies,  peculation,  whoring,  gaming,  and  all  kinds  of  dissipa- 
tions were  cherished,  nursed,  encouraged,  and  openly  countenanced.''* 

Burgoyne's  adoption,  in  the  summer  of  1777,  of  the  wilderness  route 
through  Skenesborough,  which  proved  fatal  to  his  expedition,  is  charged 
to  corrupt  influences  brought  on  him  by  Colonel  Skene,  whose  property 
was  to  be  improved  by  the  proposed  military  road.t 

The  plundering  expedition  of  General  Grey  (afterwards  the  first  Earl 
Grey)  in  Connecticut  in  the  summer  of  1778  is  thus  narrated  :| 

"  General  Clinton,  finding  nothing  to  be  done,  returned  to  New  York,  but  dispatched 
General  Grey  with  about  four  thousand  men,  under  the  convoy  of  some  frigates,  to 
the  eastward,  to  exterminate  the  nests  of  some  rebel  privateers  which  abounded  in 
the  harbors,  rivers,  and  creeks  about  Buzzard's  Bay,  in  the  old  colony  of  Plymouth. 
This  business  was  effectually  performed.  At  Fairhaven  seventy  sail  of  shipping  were 
destroyed,  with  small  craft  in  abundance.  The  magazines,  wharfs,  stores,  ware-houses, 
rope-walks,  and  vessels  on  the  stocks  were  all  burnt.  All  the  dwelling-houses  and 
holy  edifices  dedicated  to  the  worship  of  God  shared  the  same  fate.  From  Fairhaven 
the  general  proceeded  to  Martha's  Vineyard,  the  Elizabeth  Isles,  Nantucket,  and 
Block  Island,  and  disarmed  the  inhabitants  (who  had  never  interfered  in  the  contest), 
laid  them  under  contribution,  plundered  their  houses,  and  brought  with  them  to  New 
York  about  two  thousand  sheep,  one  thousand  fat  cattle,  fifteen  hundred  hogs,  and 
nearly  five  hundred  horses,  exclusive  of  what  was  used  upon  the  expedition.  The  sheep, 
cattle,  and  hogs  were  in  New  York  delivered  to  the  commissaries,  killed,  and  distrib- 
uted in  rations  to  th*  army ;  and,  though  they  cost  the  commissary  nothing,  were  the 
plunder  of  a  licentious  army,  to  which  (in  point  of  conquest)  tliey  belonged,  yet  he 
had  the  conscience  to  charge  the  crown  two  shillings  for  every  pound.  He,  besides, 
sold  the  head,  skins,  and  hides,  and  put  the  money  into  his  own  pocket.  The  horses 
were  delivered  to  the  quartermaster,  and  the  crown  charged  £'20  sterling  for  each. 
No  wonder  that  commissaries,  barrack- masters,  and  quartermasters  made  such  amaz- 
ing estates  during  the  American  war.  Nor  is  it  a  wonder  that  John  Bull  got  tired  of 
this  war,  not  against  rebellion,  but  against  the  treasury  of  Great  Britain." 

Wljile  this  system  of  devastation  and  plunder  was  in  pursuance  of 
George  Ill's  instruction  that  tbe  time  had  come  to  "distress  the  rebels," 
it  added  greatly  to  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of  British  success.  Not 
only  was  the  population  on  wliicli  the  outrages  were  committed  made 

*  1  Jones'  Hist.,  ut  supra,  133.  t  Id.,  i,  201.  t  Id.,  i,  278. 

300 


CHAP.  II.]  CASE    AGAINST   GREAT    BRITAIN.  [^  22. 

implacable,  but  the  British  army,  as  we  learn  from  this  hij^li  loyalist 
authority,  was  corrupted  and  enervated  by  the  i)lunder  and  by  tlie  igno- 
ble warfare  of  which  it  was  part. 

We  are  afterwards  told  by  Judge  Jones*  that  the  British  barrack- 
masters,  who  were  authorized  to  cut  down  the  woods  on  the  "rebel" 
estates  adjacent  to  New  York,  sold  this  wood  in  New  York  at  £4  Ss.  a 
cord,  that  the  "commanding  general"  prior  to  Carleton  "connived 
at  this  piece  of  wickedness,"  and  that  the  "  favorite  dulciueas  of  Clinton, 
Robertson,  and  Birch  were  all  supplied  with  large  quantities  of  wood 
by  their  orders." 

In  a  letter  of  Rev.  Samuel  Peters  of  December  9,  1770^  "  based  upon 
letters  from  Canada,"  given  by  Judge  Jones,t  we  have  the  following 
reply  on  behalf  of  loyal  provincials  to  Burgoyne's  charge  that  "his 
defeat  was  brought  on  him  by  the  ill  conduct  of  the  Indians,  Canadi- 
ans, and  provincials,  on  whom  he  found  too  late  was  no  dependence:" 
"General  Burgoyne,"  says  Peters,  "while  at  Quebec,  encouraged  the 
Indians  to  join  him  under  their  own  captains  and  to  fight  the  enemy  in 
their  own  way;  the  only  argument  that  could  have  prevailed  with  the 
Indians  to  join  him."  It  seems,  however,  that  he  afterwards  endeav- 
ored to  stop  their  excesses,  "  whereupon  they  set  up  their  howl,  fled, 
and  left  him." 

It  is  further  stated  that  the  books  in  the  public  libraries  of  New  York 
were  carried  off  and  sold  by  British  soldiers  during  their  occupancy.^ 
We  are  also  told  that  "Arnold,"  after  his  Virginia  raid,  "  returned  to 
New  York  as  rich  as  a  nabob  with  the  plunder  of  Virginia.  Phillips 
was  now  sent  to  make  his  fortune  out  of  what  Arnold  left  uuplundered." 

The  plundering  of  St.  Eustatia  by  the  British  in  1781  was  the  subject 
of  resolute  remonstrance  by  Loudon  merchants.  "  Having  passed  the 
bounds  of  all  shame,"  to  quote  from  another  authority,  "  we  have  re- 
turned the  forbearance  of  the  French  at  the  Grenadas  to  our  proprie- 
tors by  the  contrary  practice  at  St.  Eustatia;  Lord  George  Germain, 
however,  out  of  modesty  or  i)ride,  has  refused  to  avow  this  scandalous 
proceeding  under  his  hand  in  his  auswer  to  our  merchants,  who  have 
remonstrated  against  it."§ 

"Yesterday  we  learned  that  La  Mothe  Piquet,  who  had  lain  in  am- 
bush (no  sea  term,  I  doubt)  at  the  mouth  of  the  channel,  had  fallen  in 
au  hcau  milkm  of  our  fleet  from  Eustatia,  laden  with  the  plunder  of  all 
nations,  and  has  taken  at  least  twenty  of  them.  The  two  men-of-war 
and  two  frigates  that  convoyed  all  that  spoil  took  to  their  heels  and, 
to  talk  like  an  Irishman,  are  on  Irish  ground  in  one  of  their  harbors." || 

One  of  the  most  candid  and  intelligent  contributions  on  the  British 

*  1  Joues'  Hist.,  ut  sujjra,  i,  341. 

t  Id.,  i,  (183. 

t  Id.,  ii,  136,  137. 

$  Walpolo  to  Mason,  Mar.  3,  1781 ;  8  Cnnningham's  Walpole,  23. 

II  Walpole  to  Masou,  May  16,  1781 ;  Id.,  40. 

301 


§  22.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  II. 

side  to  the  history  of  the  war  is  that  published,  under  the  title  of  Travels 
in  America,  by  Lieutenant  Anberey,  who  was  in  Burgoyue's  army  that 
capitulated  at  Saratoga. 

^'The  loyalists  in  Pennsylvania,"  he  tells  us,  '^generally  accuse  Gen- 
eral Howe  with  ungrateful  conduct  in  abandoning  Philadelphia  after 
all  the  assistance  they  had  given  him,  and  not  having  during  the  win- 
ter endeavored  to  dislodge  General  Washington  at  Valley  Forge,  suffer- 
ing the  enemy  to  harass  and  distress  the  loyal  inhabitants  on  every 
side  of  the  British  lines,  destroying  their  mills,  seizing  their  grain, 
horses,  and  cattle,  imprisoning,  whipping,  branding,  and  killing  the 
unhappy  people  devoted  to  the  cause  of  their  sovereign,  wiio  at  every 
risk  were  daily  supplying  the  army,  navy,  and  loyal  inhabitants  within 
the  lines  w  ith  every  necessary  and  luxury  the  country  afforded."* 

Samuel  Gurwen,  before  the  war  began,  had  been  a  successful  mer- 
chant at  Salem,  in  his  early  manhood  had  been  a  captain  in  PepperelPs 
attack  on  Louisburg,  and  was  subsequently  judge  of  the  royal  admi- 
ralty court  of  Massachusetts.  In  May,  1775,  unable  to  fall  in  with  the 
revolutionary  spirit  which  was  then  becoming  dominant  in  his  province, 
he  resigned  his  office,  gave  uj)  his  business,  and  went  to  England,  where 
he  remained  during  the  war.  His  conviction  that  his  allegiance  was 
due  to  the  British  crown  never  abated  until  he  found  that,  by  the 
treaty  of  peace,  Britain  herself  had  surrendered  that  allegiance.  Yet, 
while  acknowledging  this  loyalty  as  a  matter  of  conscience,  his  journal 
and  letters,  published  in  1842,  show  how  crushed  he  was  by  what  he 
learned  of  British  warfare  on  his  native  shores.  Thus,  in  an  entry  on 
i^ovember  22,  1777,  he  quotes  without  disseut  the  following  report  of 
a  speech  of  Chatham's: 

''Have  tbey  endeavored  to  conciliate  the  affections  and  obedience  of  their  ancient 
brethren  ?  They  have  gone  to  Germany,  sought  the  alUance  of  every  pitiful,  paltry 
prince  to  cut  the  throats  of  their  loyal,  brave,  and  injured  brethren  in  America. 
They  have  entered  into  mercenary  treaties  with  these  human  butchers  for  the  pur- 
chase and  sale  of  human  blood.  But,  my  lords,  this  is  not  all.  They  have  let  the 
savages  of  America  loose  upon  their  inuocent  and  unoffending  brethren — the  aged, 
weak,  and  defenseless;  on  old  men,  women,  and  children;  upou  babes  at  the  breast — 
to  be  cut,  mangled,  sacrificed,  burnt,  and  roasted;  nay,  to  be  eaten.  These  are  the 
allies  Great  Britain  now  has.  Carnage,  desolation,  and  destraction  wherever  her 
arms  are  carried  is  her  now  adopted  mode  of  nuiking  war."     (Curweu's  Journals,  174.) 

And  this  he  inserts  with  a  sigh.  Throughout  the  A^olume  in  which 
his  letters  and  journals  for  seven  years  are  entered,  there  is  a  constant 
recognition,  not  of  the  wrongfulness  of  the  British  title,  for  this  his  feel- 
ings of  legitimacy  precluded  him  from  disputing,  but  of  the  foll^^  and 
the  wickedness  of  the  way  in  which  that  title  was  pressed.t 

*  2  Anberey's  Ti  .ivels,  266. 

flf  this  neglect  (in  the  winter  New  Jersey  campaign  of  1776-77)  was  preju- 
dicial to  the  British  cause,  how  much  more  fatal  was  the  detestable  licentiousness  in 
which  the  military  were  i^ermitted  to  indulge  in  the  Jerseys.  Plunder  and  wanton 
insult  disgusted  and  incensed  the  natives,  and  afforded  opportunities  of  reproach  which 

302 


CHAP.  IL]  case    against    GREAT    BRITAIN.  [§  22. 

If  it  be  said  tliat  there  was  retaliation  in  tliese  atrocities,  it  must  be 
remembered,  aside  from  the  want  of  proof  of  systematic  rapine  on  the 
American  side,  that  on  American  homes,  American  property,  Ameri- 
can families  the  fury  of  this  cruel  devastation  fell;  and  these  cruelties 

were  uot  ueglected  by  the  partisans  of  America."     (2  Adolpbns'  History  of  Englaud, 

3ai.) 

lu  the  London  Annual  Register  for  1777  we  have  the  following: 

"  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  devastation  and  disorders  i)racticed  by  the  Hes- 
sians should  not  operate  in  some  degree  in  their  example  on  the  British  troops.  It 
wouhl  have  been  difficult  to  have  punished  enormities  on  the  one  side  which  were 
practiced  without  reserve  or  apprehension  on  the  other.  Every  successful  deviation 
from  order  and  discipline  in  war  is  certainly  and  speedily  followed  by  others  still 
greater."  {Id.,  12.)  *  *  *  "Among  other  enormities  which  received  the  censure 
of  our  neighbors  in  that  country,  the  destruction  of  the  public  library  at  Trenton, 
and  of  the  college  and  library  at  Princeton,  together  with  a  celebrated  orrery  made 
by  Rittenhouse,  said  to  be  the  best  and  finest  in  the  world,  were  brought  as  cbarges 
of  a  Gothic  barbarity  which  waged  war  even  with  the  literature  and  sciences."  (Id., 
p.  13.) 

"The  consequences  of  the  late  military  outrages  in  the  Jerseys  were  severely 
felt  in  the  present  change  of  circumstances.  As  soon  as  fortune  turned  and  the 
means  were  in  their  power  the  sufferers  of  all  parties,  the  well-disposed  to  the  royal 
cause  as  well  as  the  neutrals  and  wavering,  now  rose  as  a  man  to  revenge  their  per- 
sonal injuries  and  particular  oppressions,  and  being  goaded  by  a  keener  spur  than  any 
which  a  public  cause  or  general  motive  could  have  excited,  became  its  bitterest  and 
most  determined  enemies.  Thus  the  whole  country,  with  too  few  exceptions,  became 
hostile  ;  those  who  were  incapable  of  arms  acting  as  spies  and  keeping  a  continual 
watch  for  those  who  bore  them,  so  that  the  smallest  motion  could  not  be  made  with- 
out its  being  exposed  and  discovered  before  it  could  produce  its  intended  effect." 
(Id.,  p.  21.) 

The  same  journal,  in  its  issue  for  1781  (p.  15),  after  noticing  the  depredations  of 
the  New  York  loyalists  on  the  adjacent  coasts,  says  that  "  the  consequence  was  that 
the  adjoining  coasts  of  the  continent,  and  particularly  of  the  maritime  and  nearer 
part  of  the  J  erseys,  became  scenes  of  waste  and  havoc ;  and  this  j)redatory  war  tended 
neither  to  subjugation  nor  reconcilement." 

According  to  the  London  Chronicle  of  August  24-26,  1771),  a  paper  which  was  the 
p  articular  organ  of  American  loyalists,  the  outrages  by  British  soldiers  on  loyalist 
refu  gees  were  as  great  as  those  inflicted  on  the  patriots  : 

"  If  the  British  general  was  indolent  and  neglectful  in  putting  a  stop  to  these  cru- 
elties (the  plunder  and  rapine  of  loyalists  coming  to  the  British  lines  for  inotection), 
the  rebel  commanders  and  new  States  were  not  so  in  converting  them  to  their  own 
benefit.  Every  possible  advantage  was  taken  of  the  enormities.  Affidavits  were 
taken  of  the  plunder  and  of  every  rape.  *  *  *  By  these  means  the  minds  of  many 
were  turned  against  the  British  Government  and  not  a  few  in  desperation  joined  the 
rebel  army.  The  force  of  the  rebels  was  increased,  the  Biitish  weakened,  and  the 
humanity  and  glory  of  the  Britons  received  a  disgraceful  tarnish  which  time  can 
never  efface." 

Affidavits  showing  the  details  of  British  depredations  in  Connecticut  during  the 
war  are  given  in  the  appendix  to  Hinman's  (Connecticut)  Historical  Collection,  Hart- 
ford, 1842.  See  also,  for  affidavits  of  outrages  in  Pennsylvania,  Pennsylvania  Even- 
ing Post,  May  1-3,  1777,  and  succeeding  issues. 

Mr.  Lecky,  in  his  History  of  England,  thus  speaks: 

"When  the  news  of  the  burning  of  Norfolk  arrived,  Washington  expressed  his  hope 
that  it  would  unite  the  whole  country  in  one  indissoluble  band  against  a  nation  which 
seems  to  be  lost  to  every  sense  of  virtue  and  those  feelings  which  distinguish  a  civil- 

303 


^  22.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  II. 

were  exteuded  wherever  ravaging  squads  could  penetrate,  wherever 
an  armed  vessel  could  find  entrance.  There  was  no  retaliation  here,  for 
the  British  had  here  no  homes  to  be  desecrated ;  no  village  churches 

izcd  i)eople  from  the  most  barbarous  savages.  If  such  language  could  be  employed 
by  such  a  man,  it  is  easy  to  conceive  how  fierce  a  spirit  must  have  been  abroad, 
lu  the  dissolution  of  all  government,  mob  intimidation  had  a  great  power  over  poli- 
ticians, and  mobs  are  always  in  favor  of  the  strongest  measures,  and  the  adoption  of 
the  policy  of  armed  resistance  had  naturally  given  an  increased  power  to  those  who 
had  been  the  first  to  advocate  it.  Every  step  which  was  taken  in  England  added  to 
the  exasperation.  Already  the  Americans  had  been  proclaimed  rebels  and  all  com- 
mercial intercourse  with  them  had  been  forbidden.  The  petition  of  Congress  to  the 
kin<^,  which  was  the  last  serious  effort  of  America  for  pacification,  was  duly  taken 
over  to  England ;  but  after  a  short  delay  Lord  Dartmouth  informed  the  delegates 
that  no  answer  would  be  given  to  it.  An  act  of  Parliament  was  passed  authorizing 
the  confiscation  of  all  American  ships  and  cargoes  and  of  all  vessels  of  other  nations 
trading  with  the  American  ports,  and  by  a  clause  of  especial  atrocity  the  command- 
ers of  the  British  ships  of  war  were  empowered  to  seize  the  crews  of  all  American 
vessels  and  compel  them,  under  pain  of  being  treated  as  mutineers,  to  serve  against 
their  countrymen.  All  these  things  contributed  to  sever  the  Colonies  from  amicable 
connection  with  England  and  to  make  the  prospect  of  reconciliation  appear  strange 
and  remote.  Separation,  it  was  plausibly  said,  was  the  act  of  the  British  Parliament 
itself,  which  had  thrown  the  thirteen  Colonies  out  of  the  protection  of  the  crown." 
(Lecky's  History  of  England,  452.) 

The  ferocity  permitted  in  the  British  army  is  exhibited  in  an  incidental  passage 
in  a  family  letter  to  Lady  Ossory,  written  by  her  brother-in-law,  General  Fitzpatrick, 
from  ^'the  head  of  Elk  River,  Maryland,  September  1,  1777,"  and  afterwards  pub- 
lished in  a  note  to  a  letter  to  Lady  Ossory  in  7  Cunningham's  Walpole,  3  : 

''  The  scene  we  are  witnesses  to  is  the  most  vile  and  execrable  that  can  be  conceived. 
A  soldier  of  ours  was  yesterday  taken  by  the  enemy  beyond  our  lines  who  had 
chopped  off  an  unfortunate  woman's  fingers  in  order  to  plunder  her  of  her  rings.  / 
really  think  the  return  of  this  army  to  England  is  to  be  dreaded  bij  the  j^eaceable  inhabitants, 
and  will  occasion  a  lyrodigious  increase  of  business  for  Sir  J.  Fielding  and  Jack  Ketch, 
lam  sure  the  office  of  the  latter  can  never  find  more  deserving  objects  for  its  exercise.^' 

See  further  on  this  topic  8  Penn.  Mag.  of  Am.  Hist.,  etc.  (part  1),  428. 

Horace  Walpole  thus  reports  Burke's  speech  on  Burgoyne's  appeal  to  the  Indians 
to  come  in  as  auxiliaries  : 

"  He  (Burgoyne)  exhorted  them  (the  Indians),  by  the  dictates  of  our  holy  religion 
and  by  their  reverence  for  our  constitution,  to  repair  to  his  majesty's  standard. 
'  Where  was  that  ? '  said  Burke.  '  On  board  Lord  Dunmore's  ship.'  And  he  exhorted 
them  (I  suppose  Ijy  the  same  divine  and  human  laws)  not  to  touch  the  hair  of 
the  head  of  man,  woman,  or  child  while  living,  though  he  was  willing  to  deal  with 
them  for  scalps  of  the  dead,  beiug  a  nice  and  distinguished  judge  between  the 
scalp  taken  from  a  dead  person  and  the  head  of  a  person  that  dies  of  being  scalped. 
'Let  us  state  this  Christian  exhortation  and  Christian  injunction,'  said  Burke,  'by 
a  more  family  picture.  Suppose  there  was  a  riot  on  Tower  Hill,  what  would  the 
Keeper  of  his  Majesty's  Lions  do  ?  Would  he  not  fling  open  the  dens  of  the  wild 
beasts  and  then  address  them  thus  :  "  My  gentle  lions,  my  humane  bears,  my  senti- 
mental wolves,  my  tender-hearted  hyenas,  go  forth;  but  I  exhort  you,  as  ye  are 
Christians  and  members  of  a  civilized  society,  to  take  care  not  to  harm  a  woman  or 
child !" ' "  This  speech,  according  to  Walpole,  was  "  wonderful;  his  wit  made  North, 
Rigby,  and  ministers  laugh ;  his  pathos  drew  tears  down  Band's  cheeks."  (Walpole 
to  Mason,  February  12,  1776,  7  Cunningham's  Walpole,  29.) 

In  Walsh's  Appeal  Chatham's  speech  is  thus  reported : 

''It  will  be  at  once  understood  that  I  mean  the  employment  of  the  savages  as  aux- 

304 


CHAP.  II.]  CASE    AGAINST    GREAT    BRITAIN.  [§  L*3. 

or  libraries  or  schools  to  be  ruthlessly  burned;  no  accumulation  of 
stores  on  which  women  and  children  depended  to  be  destroyed.* 

Dissoluteness  and  levity.  §  23.   The  high  authority  of  Judge  Thomas 

Jones,  as  the  historian  of  the  British  occupation 
of  !N^ew  York,  was  noticed  in  the  last  section.  Mis  characterization  of 
the  dissoluteness  that  pervaded  the  British  occupancy  of  New  York  is 
too  minute  in  its  coarse  and  shocking  details  to  be  here  reproduced, 

iliarios  ;  au  enormity  of  rancor  and  desperate  ambition  which  drew  down  those  blast- 
ing thnnders  from  the  genins  Chatham,  that  seem  to  be  still  heard  when  we  look  at 
the  faint  image  of  them  conveyed  in  the  parliamentary  history.  Two  years  after  the 
commencement  of  the  Revolution  had  this  prophetic  and  generous  spirit  to  tell  his 
countrymen  in  an  agony  of  shame  and  grief,  '  It  is  not  a  wild  and  lawless  banditti 
whom  w^e  ojjpose  ;  the  resistance  of  America  is  the  struggle  of  free  and  virtuous 
patriots.'  The  cruelty  and  degeneracy  of  associating  to  the  British  arms  the  toma- 
haivk  and  scaljying-lcnife;  of  ^  trafiScking  at  the  shambles  of  every  German  despot' — 
for  the  purpose  of  crushing  that  resistance,  of  butchering  a  people  chiefly  descended 
from  British  loins,  and  from  whose  labors  Britain  had  reaped  so  rich  a  harvest  of 
power  and  glory,  might  well  produce  the  'sanctified  frenzy  '  to  which  he  was  wrought. 
But  he  recollected,  besides,  how  long  that  people  had  struggled  with  'the  merciless 
Indian'  for  the  possession  of  the  soil  on  which  they  had  reared  English  communities 
and  institutions,  and  he  felt,  in  seeing  the  same  inveterate  enemy  led  back  upon 
them  by  the  country  for  whose  benefit  nearly  as  much  as  their  own  they  had  fought 
so  bravely  and  bled  so  jirofusely,  the  peculiar  hardship  and  bitterness  of  their  lot 
and  the  unparalleled  barbarity  and  callousness  of  England.  There  was  enough 
to  rouse  all  the  energies  of  his  humanity  and  his  patriotism  in  the  item  which  the 
treasury  accounts  presented  of  £160,000  sterling  for  the  purchase  of  warlike  accouter- 
ments  for  the  savages ;  in  that  phrase,  as  ridiculous  as  it  was  ferocious,  of  Burgoyne's 
speech  to  the  congress  of  Indians  at  the  river  Boquet  (June  21,  1777),  '  Go  forth  in  the 
might  of  your  valor  and  your  cause ;  strike  at  the  common  enemies  of  Great  Britain 
and  America,  disturbers  of  public  order,  peace,  and  happiness ;  destroyers  of  com- 
merce; parricides  of  the  state;'  and  in  the  proclamation  of  Governor  Tonyu,  of  East 
Florida,  offering  a  reward  for  every  American  scalp  delivered  to  persons  appointed 
to  receive  them."     (Walsh's  Appeal,  part  i,  $  vi,  p.  196.) 

*  It  was  said  by  Mr.  Gladstone,  in  speaking  of  the  Bulgarian  atrocities,  "that 
it  is  monstrous  to  place  on  the  same  footing  ithe  cruelties  of  the  oppressed  and  the 
cruelties  of  the  oppressor;"  and  this  distinc^^ion,  whatever  may  have  been  the  case 
at  the  close  of  the  revolutionary  war,  when  the  belligerents  stood  somewhat  on  an 
equality,  applies  in  full  force  to  the  plan  of  the  campaign  as  directed  by  George  III. 
It  was  in  accordance  with  that  plan  that  Indians  were  employed  to  devastate  and 
to  assassinate  without  regard  to  sex  or  age;  that  foreign  mercenaries  were  brought 
to  the  field  not  from  patriotic  or  loyal  motives,  but  for  money;  and  that  Americans 
were  by  royal  direction  ''distressed  "  by  secret  military  excursions  to  plunder  and 
burn  up  defenseless  villages. 

As  an  illustration  of  a  very  different  spirit  on  the  American  side  may  be  given  the 
following  letter  from  Paul  Jones  to  Lady  Selkirk,  dated  March  1,  1730  (Cong.  Li- 
brary MSS.): 

"  I  have  now  the  satisfaction  to  inform  you  that  Congress  has  relinquished  their 
real  or  supposed  interest  in  the  plate,  and  for  my  own  part  I  scorn  to  add  to  my  for- 
tune by  such  au  acquisition.  As  for  the  part  claimed  by  the  few  men  who  landed 
with  me  at  St.  Mary's  Isle,  it  is  of  little  consequence,  and  they  are  already  satisfied. 
Thus  you  see,  madam,  that  the  earl's  objection  is  removed.  The  plate  is  lodged  now 
in  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Gourlade  Moylan,  who  hold  it  at  your  disposal." 

20  WH  305 


§  23.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  II. 

bat  aflfordiug  as  it  does  an  unquestionably  accurate  descriptiou  by  an 
intelligent  and  conscientious  eye-witness  of  the  outrages  of  that  occu- 
pancy, it  gives  tbe  historical  critic  material  to  elucidate  allusions  and 
appeals  in  our  diplomatic  correspondence  which  otherwise  would  be 
inexplicable,*  throwing  light  on  the  apparent  harshness  of  Washing- 
ton and  of  Congress  in  the  cases  of  Andr6  and  of  Asgill,  the  austerity 
of  Washington's  bearing  in  his  intercourse  with  emissaries  from  the 
British  headquarters,  and  the  Puritan  tone  of  some  of  the  public  docu- 
ments of  the  day.  reminding  us  of  that  of  the  leaders  of  the  English  revo- 
lution of  1640,  who  felt  that  their  revolt  was  as  much  against  a  dissolute 
court  as  against  a  tyrannical  prince.  Of  the  strength  of  this  reproba- 
tion we  have  a  curious  illustration  in  a  letter  of  Gerard  to  Vergennes, 
dated  at  Philadelphia  on  August  24,  1778,f  in  which,  according  to 
Doniol,  "  on  the  occasion  of  a  banquet  which  Gerard  gave  to  Congress 
on  the  festival  of  St.  Louis,  in  return  for  one  which  Congress  had  given 
to  him,  the  whole  of  that  body  was  assembled  at  his  house,  and  was 
enthusiastically  celebrating  his  majesty's  anniversary.  He  wished  to 
conclude  the  evening  with  a  ball,  but  he  was  informed  that  he  would 
oblige  them  by  giving  wp  his  intention,  as  it  was  desired  to  '  establish 
a  strict  line  of  demarkation  between  the  whigs  and  the  tories,  especially 
between  the  women,'  and  they  brought  forward  as  a  final  objection  a 
law  which  had  been  passed  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Presbyterians,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  revolt,  to  i^rohibit  public  amusements,  in  order  to 
obtain  the  protection  of  Heaven." 

The  letters  of  Eichard  Henry  Lee  and  of  Samuel  Adams,  the  former 
of  whom  at  least  was  no  "  Presbyterian,"  teem  with  denunciations  of 
the  examples  of  gross  immorality  thus  set  in  our  great  cities,  viewing 
such  conduct  as  an  additional  reason  for  the  pursuance  of  that  "root 
and  branch "  system  which  those  eminent  revolutionists  advocated  j 
and  even  Franklin,  careless  Gallio  as  they  held  him  to  be,  more  than 
once  appeals  to  British  licentiousness  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia 
not  merely  as  a  reason  for  totally  casting  off  the  British  yoke,  but  as  a 
warning  to  ourselves  of  the  consequences  of  thus  indulging  in  a  licen- 
tiousness which  enervates  those  yielding  to  it,  while  it  repels  all  others. 
As  showing  the  popular  verdict,  Kichard  Henry  Lee,  in  one  of  his  let- 
ters written  immediately  alter  the  British  evacuation,  mentions  that 
in  a  procession  gotten  up  to  commemorate  that  deliverance  one  of  the 
conspicuous  objects  was  a  gigantic  effigy,  dressed  up  to  parody,  by  ab- 
surdness  and  impudence  of  costume,  the  mistresses  to  whom  the  British 
generals  were  said  to  have  devoted  themselves,  and  who  was  in  this 
attire  and  with  other  emblems  denoting  profligacy  and  rapacity  pa- 

*  See  1  Jones'  History  of  New  York,  171,176,189,253,351;  2  id.,  57,87,423.  Tbe 
same  infamous  scenes  were  exhibited  in  Philadelphia,  where  Howe  passed  the  win- 
ter, ''corrupting  his  own  army  by  his  example  of  licentiousness  and  teaching  the 
younger  officers  to  ruin  themselves  by  gaming."     (10  Bancroft's  United  States,  12.) 

+  Douiol,  iii,  396. 

300 


CHAP.  II.]  CASE   AGAINST    GREAT    BRITAIN.  [§  23. 

rafled  before  the  town.  When  we  recollect  that  similar  caricatures  were 
l)ara(le(l  in  England  and  Scotland  during  the  great  Puritan  reactions,  we 
may  condone  tlie  coarseness  of  this  Pliiladeli)hia  i)arade  of  1778.  And 
when  wo  recur  to  Judge  Jones'  pages  it  is  impossible  not  to  see  that 
the  profligacy  the  Philadelphia  procession  i^arodied  was  worse  than 
even  the  worst  profligacy  of  the  Stuarts. 

When  Franklin  was  told  that  Sir  William  Howe  had  taken  Pliila. 
delphia,  his  answer  was  that  it  was  more  likely  that  Philadelphia  had 
taken  Sir  William  Howe.  There  can  be  uow  no  question  that  the  stay 
of  the  British  army  in  Philadelphia  in  the  winter  and  spring  of  1778 
was  damaging  to  the  British  cause.  X>uriug  this  occu[)ation  seven  hun- 
dred of  the  private  soldiers  deserted ;  while  the  conduct  of  the  officers 
was  marked  by  a  luxury  in  singular  contrast  with  the  stern  endurance 
of  excessive  hardships  shown  by  Washington  and  those  who  served 
under  him  at  Valley  Forge.  The  effect  of  the  contrast  on  men  of  gen- 
erous spirit  must  have  been  very  great.  The  same  volume  of  the  Lon- 
don Annual  Eegister  which  gives  the  account  of  the  British  retreat 
from  Philadelphia  contains  a  letter  from  "  an  officer  at  Philadelphia," 
dated  May  23, 1778,  narrating  the  particulars  of  the  "  Mischiauza"  exhib- 
ited in  Philadelphia  at  the  departure  of  General  Howe.*  This  was 
a  sort  of  tournament,  "according  to  the  customs  and  ordinances  of 
ancient  chivalry,"  in  which  the  *' General  and  Admiral"  took  i^art,  and 
in  which  the  principal  male  actors  were  ''knights  dressed  in  ancient 
habits  of  white  and  red  silk,  and  mounted  on  gray  horses,  richly  capar- 
isoned in  trappings  of  the  colors,"  attended  by  their  esquires  on  foot. 
As  chief  of  the  ''  knights  "  appeared  Lord  Oathcart,  attended  by  two 
young  black  slaves,  with  sashes  and  drawers  of  blue  and  white  silk, 
wearing  large  silver  clasps  round  their  necks  and  arms,  their  breasts 
and  shoulders  bare.  Then  came  six  knights,  one  of  whom,  Caiitain 
Andre,  was  the  designer  of  the  pageant,  and  left  some  lively  sketches 
commemorating  it.  The  tournament  was  for  the  purpose  of  determin- 
ing the  claims  of  *'the  ladies  of  the  Blended  Bose  and  the  ladies  of  the 
Burning  Mountain"  for  superior  charms.  There  were  many  "flourishes 
of  trumpets"  and  "galloping  of  steeds,"  and  rockets,  and  plumes  of 
feathers 5  yet  on  those  who  had  gazed  on  exhibitions  under  more  gorgeous 
and  sumptuous  auspices  the  scene  must  have  somewhat  palled.  The 
house  which  was  selected  as  the  site  of  the  indoor  dancing  was  the  old 
Wharton  mansion,  whose  Quaker  master,  with  his  family,  was  uncere- 
moniously ejected  to  make  room  for  the  disi)lay.  The  Quakers,  who 
formed  a  large  and  influential  portion  of  the  population  of  the  city, 
and  who  heretofore  had  inclined  towards  the  crown,  were  not  a  little 
shocked  at  such  frivolity  at  such  a  crisis,  whose  momentous  solemnity 
most  of  them,  embracing  some  of  the  principal  capitalists  of  the  city, 
well  knew.     Old  loyalists,  who  had  been  trained  in   England  or  in 

*  See  4  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  etc.,  200;  Arnold's  Life  of  B.  Arnold,  224. 

307 


§  23.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  H. 

Euglisli  ways,  shuddered  at  the  spectacle,  on  account  not  only  of  its 
tawdriness,  but  of  its  unsuitableness  at  such  a  period  and  in  such  con- 
ditions. The  respect  felt  for  British  arms  would  not  have  been  height- 
ened among  such  observers  by  the  spectacle  of  the  employment  of  those 
arms,  not  against  Washington's  besieging*  army,  but  in  deciding  in 
sham  fights  whether  the  ladies  of  the  Burning  Mountain  were  more 
beautiful  than  the  ladies  of  the  Blended  liose.  The  contrast  between 
Washington's  besieging  army,  enduring  in  that  bitter  winter  hardships 
in  its  huts,  and  Howe's  army,  dissolved  in  dissolute  frivolity  in  the  city, 
was  not  unlike  that  between  Hogarth's  industrious  and  idle  apprentices, 
and  with  analogous  incidents.  It  is  not  strange  that  after  this  exhibition 
respect  for  the  revolutionary  cause  increased  as  that  for  Britain  dimin- 
ished.* Serious  and  patriotic  men  (and  such  men  composed  a  large  and 
influential  proportion  of  the  population  of  the  Colonies)  could  not  but  feel 
that  as  between  the  spirit  of  Philadelphia  and  that  of  Yalley  Forge  in 

*A  bitter  loyalist  attack  on  the  Miscbianza  will  be  found  in  the  London  Chron- 
icle for  July  17-20,  1779.  It  was  ''nauseous."  "Cleopatra"  herself  presided  over 
the  frivolous  nymphs  and  the  no  loss  frivolous  heroes,  and  '*  all  this  medley  of  a 
triumph  was  made  in  honor  of  a  never-conquering  hero  upon  his  losing"  a  large  part 
of  the  British  possessions. 

Lord  (Admiral)  Howe's  biographer  speaks  of  the  Miscbianza  in  terms  which  would 
show  that  British  critics  were  not  insensible  of  the  absurdity  and  inappropriateness 
of  the  j)erformance.  It  is  called*  a  "silly  exhibition,"  and  we  are  told  that  it  was 
abused  and  happily  ridiculed  by  that  vagabond  Paine  as  follows:  ''He  [General 
Howe]  bounces  off  Avith  his  bombs  and  burning  hearts  set  upon  the  pillars  of  his  tri- 
umphal arch,  which,  at  the  proper  time  of  the  show,  burst  out  in  a  shower  of  squibs 
and  crackers  and  other  fire-works  to  the  delectable  amusement  of"  certain  young 
ladies  named  by  Paine.     (Barrows'  Life  of  Howe,  115.) 

Judge  Jones,  a  strong  loyalist,  in  his  History  of  New  York  (1,  251  and  261),  scowls 
at  the  Miscbianza  as  a  ridiculous  farce,  shocking  at  such  a  crisis. 

In  Boston  Sir  William  Howe's  life  was  as  scandalous  as  in  Philadelphia  and  in  New 
York,  spending  his  time  ''at  the  faro  table  and  the  theater,  and  carrying  on  an  affaire 
d'amour  with  a  popular  belle  of  the  day;"  so  that  in  newspapers  he  became  the  Marc 
Antony  whom  a  Boston  Cleojiatra  betrayed.     (Baxter's  Digby's  Journal,  155.) 

In  the  London  Chronicle  for  August  14-17,  1779,  volume  2,  page  259,  a  supposed 
epitaph  on  Howe  is  given,  in  which  is  the  following : 

"A  boundless  rapacity  allured  him  to  so  atrocious  a  system  of  refined  and  deliber- 
ate treachery,  ever  dreading  the  glory  of  victory  and  of  conquest  as  tendiug  to 
shorten  the  period  of  the  war  and  to  withdraw  him  from  the  embezzlement  of  the 
I)ublic  treasure.  Thus,  a  parricide  to  his  country,  he  was  moreover  distinguished  in 
the  features  of  his  private  character,  for  the  uniform  dissoluteness  of  his  conduct 
demonstrated  his  degradation." 

The  paper  in  which  this  appears  was  the  channel  in  which  the  refugees  frequently 
put  forth  their  views. 

Sir  William  Howe,  we  are  again  told  (London  Chronicle,  August  24-26, 1779),  "  pre- 
ferred," at  the  critical  campaign  of  June,  1778,  "  the  pleasures  of  indolence  and  dis- 
sipation to  a  discharge  of  his  duty  to  his  country."  The  indifference  of  the  ministry 
to  appeals  of  this  character,  coming  from  loyalists  of  standing,  can  only  be  ex- 
phained  by  taking  into  account  the  toleration  then  shown  to  moral  taints  in  public 
men  such  as  would  not  now  be  condoned,  and  which  place  Howe  in  such  marked  con- 
trast with  such  succeeding  British  generals  as  Havelock  and  Raglan.     A  ministry 

308 


CHAP.  II.]  CASE    AGAINST    GREAT    BRITAIN.  [§  23. 

that  memorable  winter,  their  lot,  whatever  might  have  beeu  their  pre- 
vious predilections,  was  to  be  with  Valley  Forge.  And  to  men  of  en- 
thusiasm who  entered  into  the  contest,  as  did  La  Fayette,  acquainted 
with  the  hollowness  even  of  spectacles  far  more  gorgeous  than  those  of 
the  Mischiauza,  Galley  Forge  exhibited  the  character  of  Washington 
and  the  cause  he  led,  in  a  grandeur  which  drew  from  them  veneration, 
zeal,  and  devotion. 

What  followed  increased  this  feeling.  The  Delaware  River,  down 
which  had  floated  the  gaily-dressed  vessels  of  the  Mischianza,  boisterous 
with  revelry,  was  in  a  few  days  to  witness  the  same  vessels,  their  finery 
stripped  off,  carrying  to  the  Jerseys  not  ordy  the  British  army  retreat- 
ing before  the  gaunt  and  haggard  troops  which  had  been  encamped 
at  Valley  Forge,  but  a  crowd  of  refugees  who  had  been  lured  by  Brit- 
ish promises  to  accept  British  protection  and  British  allegiance  in  Phil- 

whicli  had  Germain  aud  Saudwlcli  among  its  leaders  would  see  nothing  in  itself 
censurable  in  the  dissoluteness  of  Howe.  Yet  this  dissoluteness,  the  example  of  which 
Howe  set  and  the  ostentatious  spread  of  which  he  encouraged,  was  as  much  an  ele- 
ment in  the  revolt  of  men  of  sobriety  and  religious  earnestness  in  1776-'79  as  was  the 
dissoluteness  of  Buckingham  and  his  associates  an  element  in  the  revolt  of  men  of 
the  same  class  in  1626.  As  in  some  degree  explaining  Howe's  ostentation  of  immoral- 
ity and  the  partiality  shown  him  and  his  brother  by  George  III,  we  may  recollect 
that  the  grandmother  of  the  Howes  was  the  Baroness  Kllmansegge,  the  mistress  of 
George  I. 

In  a  very  powerful  article  in  the  Caledonian  Mercury,  republished  in  the  Pennsylva- 
nia Gazette  of  June  9,  1779,  Howe's  campaigns  are  said  to  be  marked  by  *'  delay 
without  prudence  and  success  without  advantage ;"  and  the  cause  of  his  failure  is 
directly  charged  to  the  gaming-table  and  to  the  sexual  excesses  in  which  he  indulged. 
These,  coupled  with  the  frivolity  of  the  Mischianza,  are  used  as  an  appeal  not  merely 
for  Howe's  disgrace,  but  for  the  discontinuance  of  a  war  to  which  such  infamous  mis- 
conduct seemed  incidental. 

A  strong  and  coarse  statement  of  Howe's  indolence  and  licentiousness,  as  destroy- 
ing his  military  activity,  is  made  by  General  Charles  Lee,  in  his  letter  of  June  4,  1778, 
to  "Rush,"  as  published  in  Charles  Lee's  Memoirs,  London,  179*2,  424.  The  copy  I 
have  before  me  came  from  the  library  of  General  Sir  H.  Clinton,  whose  marginal  notes 
are  jilaced  against  the  passages  from  which  he  dissented.  To  this  passage  there  is  no 
expression  of  dissent  attached. 

Of  Burgoyne,  Madame  Riedesel,  whose  opportunities  of  observation  as  wife  of  a 
German  ofiBcer  of  the  highest  rank  were  great,  and  whose  accuracy  can  not  be  dis- 
puted, thus  writes : 

"  He  spent  half  the  nights  [of  his  campaign  of  1777]  in  singing  and  drinking  and 
anmsing  himself  with  the  wife  of  a  commissary,  who  was  his  mistress,  aud  who,  as 
well  as  ho,  loved  champagne."  (See,  for  other  references  on  this  point,  Baxter's  Dig- 
by 's  Journal,  42.) 

In  an  intercepted  letter  from  Earl  Percy  to  Sir  Henry  Clinton,  dated  February  28, 
1781,  after  speaking  of  the  irresolution  of  the  ministry  and  its  want  of  wisdom  and 
energy,  he  says : 

''  Thus  we  seem  by  some  fatality  or  other  always  to  mistime  every  operation.  In- 
deed, notwithstanding  our  situation  is  so  critical  a  one,  we  seem  to  interest  ourselves 
much  more  about  the  fate  of  a  French  dancer  than  the  fate  of  this  country."  (MSS., 
Department  of  State.) 

As  to  the  example  set  by  Sandwich,  who  waa  at  the  head  of  the  navy,  see  infra, 
^  27,  note. 

309 


§  23.]  INTRODUCTION.  [cHAP.  11. 

adelpbia,  and  who  now,  to  the  number  of  several  thousand,  found  them- 
selves, as  we  will  see  in  the  next  section,  driven  by  fear  to  fly  from  the 
city  into  desolate  exile. 

Shortly  afterwards  occurred  in  Philadelphia  the  reception  by  Con- 
gress, returned  from  York  to  its  old  seat,  of  the  envoy  of  France,  bringing 
with  him  pledges  of  a  French  alliance;  and  in  a  few  days  came  the 
bloody  battle  of  Monmouth,  where  Washington's  soldiers  from  Yalley 
Forge  waged,  with  numbers  and  equipments  against  them,  at  least  an 
equal  battle  with  the  British  army  on  its  retreat  from  Philadelphia  to 
New  York. 

What  was  exhibited  in  Philadelphia  during  British  occupation  was 
exhibited  in  New  York,  in  Boston,  in  Charleston,  under  similar  condi- 
tions. If  we  study  Rivington^s  Gazette,  as  issued  when  the  British 
were  in  New  York,  we  can  not  but  be  amazed  at  the  levit^^  and  the 
heartlessness  it  exhibits  on  the  part  of  the  occupying  forces.  There  is 
not  one  word  showing  a  sense  of  the  gravity  of  the  position  of  the  troops 
there  encamped.  There  is  not  one  word  of  consciousness  of  the  cruelty 
of  the  predatory  piratical  incursions  made  under  the  British  flag  on  the 
undefended  villages  of  the  adjacent  coasts.  Of  war  intelligence  there 
is  but  little,  and  even  Cornwallis'  surrender  is  introduced  as  an  ordi- 
nary news  item  not  requiring  comment.  But  there  is  an  immense 
amount  of  literary  persiflage  in  prose  and  in  poetry;  there  are  many 
"  intercepted  letters,"  some  of  them  obviously  forged,  some  of  them 
feeble  parodies;  while  the  political  contributions  consist  mainly  of 
attacks,  somewhat  foreshadowing  the  *' Anti-Jacobin,"  on  American 
courage  and  American  character,  such  as  the  '^ dream"  of  Andre,  no- 
ticed in  a  prior  section.  If  we  turn  from  the  literary  and  political  por- 
tions of  the  paper  to  its  social,  we  find  the  same  course  run  as  in  Phila- 
delphia: festivity  after  festivity ;  reports  of  theatrical  entertainments 
and  masques  following  each  other  in  rapid  succession ;  the  British  garrison 
contributing  the  principal  heroes  to  these  performances.  On  went  these 
orgies  even  when  Cornwallis'  weary  army  was  toiling  upwards  to  York- 
town,  there  to  capitulate;  and  so  things  continued  as  long  as  the  British 
troops  were  in  New  York.  And  these  scenes  closed,  as  we  will  next 
see,  with  a  final  abandonment  of  New  York  loyalists,  which  was  the 
last  touch  that  dissolved  whatever  colonial  attachment  remained  from 
England  in  the  New  World  to  England  in  the  Old.* 

*  lu  a  mauuscript  letter  from  Johu  Adams  to  J.  F.  Watson,  of  August  21,  1818 
(Dreer  Collection),  we  Lave  the  following: 

'*  If  you  suppose  the  Britisli  were  influenced  by  any  *  motives  of  conciliation,'  you 
have  been  grossly  deceived.  They  never  manifested  any  such  motives  through  the 
whole  history  of  this  country  for  two  hundred  years.  They  ever  felt  *  a  most  sover- 
eign contempt  for  us'  as  Puritans,  dissenters,  schismatics,  convicts,  redemptionists; 
as  Irish,  Scotch,  German,  Dutch,  and  Swedes,  more  than  a  century  before  they  had  a 
color  or  pretext  to  call  us  rebels.'^ 

310 


CHAP.  II.]  CASE    AGAINST    GREAT    BRITAIN.  [§  24. 

Abandonment  of  loyalists.  §  24.  Wlieii  General  Gage  took  possession  of 

Boston  be  promised  protection  to  all  subjects 
who  would  place  themselves  within  his  lines.  Multitudes  did  so,  trust- 
ing this  pledge,  who,  when  Boston  was  evacuated,  were  driven  back 
from  the  ships  wliich  carried  off  the  troops  and  certain  favored  individ- 
uals ;  and  even  those  who  had  the  privilege  of  being  shipped  to  Halifax 
found  themselves  thrown  penniless  on  strange  shores,  where  they  be- 
came dependent  on  a  i^opuhxtion  in  itself  singularly  poor  and  on  a  soil 
singularly  inhospitable. 

At  the  very  moment  of  the  extravagancies  of  the  Mischianza,  when 
British  officers  were  lavishing  their  theatrical  hospitalities  on  "loy- 
alists," and  promising  perpetual  protection  to  the  city  under  the  royal 
arms,  a  flight  from  Phihulelphia  was  in  preparation.  Suddenly,  in 
one  week  after  the  festival,  it  was  made  known  that  the  British  army 
was  about  to  leave  to  its  fate  the  popuhition  from  which  it  had  forced 
allegiance  under  promise  of  protection,  and  to  particularly  expose  to 
the  not  unnatural  displeasure  of  the  republic  the  very  class  whom  it 
had  made  conspicuous  by  these  festive  extravagancies.  The  panic  was 
such  that,  according  to  British  authority,  no  less  than  three  thousand 
of  tlie  inhabitants  fled  with  the  British  army.*  The  Earl  of  Carlisle, 
one  of  the  British  commissioners  of  1778,  thus  writes  to  George  Selwyn, 
in  a  letter  dated  Philadelphia,  Wednesday,  June  10 : 

"  We  arrived  at  this  place,  after  a  voyage  of  six  weeks,  on  Saturday  last,  and  found 
everything  here  in  great  confusion;  the  army  upon  the  point  of  leaving  the  town, 
and  about  three  thousand  of  the  miserable  inhabitants  embarked  on  board  our  sliips, 
to  convey  them  from  a  place  where  they  conceived  they  would  receive  no  mercy  from 
those  who  will  take  possession  after  us,  to  follow  the  army,  and  starve  when  we  can 
no  longer  continue  to  feed  them."     (3  Selwyn  and  His  Cotemporaries,  280.) 

"  It  appears,"  said  Mrs.  Eden,  wife  of  another  of  the  Britisli  commis- 
sioners, in  a  letter  of  June  15, 1778,  "  a  most  melancholy  thing  to  desert 
this  large  city.  *  *  *  Imagine  this  river  covered  with  vessels  in  full 
sail,  as  thick  as  possible,  crowded  with  people  leaving  the  city  where 
they  have  been  born  and  bred;  flying  from  an  enemy — which  enemy 
may  consist  of  relations  and  friends — leaving  their  whole  property  and 
all  their  fortunes  but  what  they  can  carry  with  tliem.  It  is  indeed  a 
most  terrible  scene."! 

An  equally  flagrant  instance  of  such  desertion  was  that  which  marked 
the  southern  campaigns  of  1781-'S2.  It  was  well  known  that  there 
were  certain  portions  of  the  population  of  Korth  and  South  Carolina 
which  were  more  or  less  averse  to  the  Revolution,  and  which  would,  if 
duly  assured  of  protection,  submit  without  murmur  to  the  British  sway. 
Glowing  proclamations  were  issued  to  them,  and  many  submitted  and 
bore  arms,  they  being  told  this  was  for  local  defense.  But  hardly  were 
they  thus  committed  when,  under  the  stress  of  some  sudden  attack 

"  4  Lecky's  History  of  England,  90.     See  also  Livingston  to  Franklin,  Dec.  16, 
1781 ;  Franklin  to  Adams,  Oct.  20,  1781. 
t  Hugh  Elliott's  Life,  177. 

311 


§  24.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  II. 

devised  by  the  genius  of  Mariou,  of  Sumter  or  of  Greeue,  the  British 
troops  hurried  oft'  to  less  exposed  fields,  leaving  these  new  recruits  to 
the  not  unnatural  displeasure  of  their  more  patriotic  fellow-countrymen. 
They  might  put  themselves  right,  it  is  true,  by  enlisting  in  the  American 
army,  but  then  the  British  troops  might  return,  and  then,  as  was  some- 
times the  case,  hang  as  deserters  the  unhappj^  victims  of  their  bad 
faith.  The  eifect  of  this  was,  that  even  in  those  regions  which  had  been 
best  affected  to  Britain,  Ooruwallis  on  his  last  march  found  that  the 
sujjposed  loyalists  fled  from  him  with  scowls. 

Then  came  the  capitulation  of  Yorktown,  whose  terms  were  such  as 
to  destroy  whatever  remained  of  confidence  in  the  capacity  of  Britain 
to  protect  American  loyalists.  Of  Cornwallis^  abandonment  of  the 
loyalists  within  his  lines  Horace  Walpole  thus  speaks  : 

'*Ho  certainly  ought,  ou  the  refusal  of  the  tenth  article  [giving  such  protection],  to 
have  declared  that  he  would  die  rather  than  sacrifice  the  poor  Americans  who  had 
followed  him  from  loyalty  against  their  countrymen ;  he  should  have  tried  whether 
that  would  not  have  softened  the  enemy.  At  last,  even  if  his  army  had  surrendered 
themselves,  he  might  have  refused  to  sign  the  articles.  There  have  been  such  in- 
stances. On  the  contrary,  he  stipulated  for  his  own  leave  to  return  home  and  aban- 
doned those  deluded  troops.  It  has  been  justly  said  that,  having  capitulated  for  his 
garrison,  the  American  troops  were  included,  and  to  put  them  to  death  would  have 
been  a  breach  of  the  articles.  To  this  it  was  answered  that  perhaps  the  Americans, 
doubting  their  countrymen,  had  desired  to  be  specified.  I  should  scarce  think  they 
desired  him  to  make  use  of  the  word  punished.  Still,  when  he  had  been  refused,  he 
ought  to  have  struggled  for  them  to  the  last  moment.  He  or  Lord  Rawdon  had  set 
an  example  of  such  cruel  warfare — had  just  hanged  an  American  officer  that  had 
deserted  them ;  and  the  American  General  Greene  had  recently  published  a  proclama- 
tion in  which  he  declared  he  would  retaliate  not  on  American  but  ou  English  offi- 
cers; but  the  latter  Lord  Cornwallis  secured.  This  sacrifice  was  severely  han- 
dled, too,  by  Mr.  Burke  and  Mr.  William  Pitt  in  the  House  of  Commons.  It  was  a 
virtual  end  to  the  war.  Could  one  American,  unless  those  shut  up  in  New  York  and 
Charlestown,  even  out  of  prudence  and  self-preservation,  declare  for  England,  by 
whose  general  they  were  so  unfeelingly  abandoned?"* 

Of  the  terms  of  Ooruwallis'  surrender  Horace  Walpole  writes  to  Ma- 
son, under  date  of  November  28,  1781 : 

''You  mayb.e  unused  to  horrors,  yet  if  you  have  read  the  tenth  article  of  Lord  Corn- 
wallis' capitulation  your  feelings  will  bleed  afresh.  He  capitulates  for  his  own  per- 
son and  return;  he  capitulates  for  his  garrison;  but  lest  the  loyal  Americans  who 
had  followed  him  should  be  included  in  that  indemnity,  he  demands  that  they  should 
not  be  punished^  is  refused,  and  leaves  them  to  be  hanged.  Now  his  burning  towns,  etc., 
becomes  a  mere  wantonness  of  war;  they  were  the  towns  of  those  whom  he  called  rebels, 
though  he  was  one  of  the  five  who  protested  against  the  stamp  act.  But  these  were 
bis  friends,  his  fellow  soldiers !  Could  1  fill  these  pages  more  with  news  I  would  not. 
What  article  would  deserve  to  be  coupled  with  so  abominable  a  deed?''t 

'-''  That  fatal  day  when  I  left  home ; "  "  all  that  I  desire  is  to  return 
and  lay  my  bones  in  that  dear  soil ; "  '^  1  am  not  welcome  here." 
Expressions  such  as  these  occur  constantly  in  refugee  correspondence. 
Britain  may  not  have  been  to  blame  for  not  keeping  promises  the  per- 

*  Walpole's  George  III,  475.  1 8  Cunningham's  Walpole,  118. 

312 


CHAP.  II.]  CASE    AGAINST    GREAT    BRITAIN.  [§  25. 

forrnaiice  of  which  became  impossible ;  but  her  abandonment  of  those 
who  acted  on  her  pledges  was  one  of  the  main  causes  why,  in  the  fall  of 
1782,  there  was  no  loyalist  party  left  in  the  United  States.  And  it  must 
also  be  remembered,  when  discussing  the  merits  of  the  case,  that  when 
full  compensation  to  these  abandoned  loyalists  was  suggested  by  Frank- 
lin as  the  price  of  the  cession  of  Canada,  this  cession,  though  at  first 
regarded  favorably  by  Shelburne,  was  considered  ultimately  inadmis- 
sible by  his  associates.  The  opportunity  to  Britain  of  thiLs  redeeming 
her  pledges  of  protection  was  then  lost.* 

Growth  ofaflfection  to  France.        §  25.  By  almost  the  entire  population  of  the 

thirteen  Colonies  France,  before  the  Revolution, 
was  regarded  with  aversion.  To  the  Puritan  the  religion  of  France 
was  detestable,  and  this  detestation  was  not  lessened  by  the  campaigns 
which  New  and  Old  England  conducted  together  against  Canada,  and  in 
which  the  hardness  of  French-Indian  warfare  was  the  theme  of  denun- 
ciation for  years  in  almost  every  Puritan  household.  The  Huguenot, 
whose  influence  in  several  of  the  Colonies  was  great,  had  his  own  rea- 
sons for  utter  political  and  personal  hatred  of  the  power  by  which  he 
had  been  treated  so  ruthlessly.  The  Cavalier  emigrants,  in  proportion 
to  the  intensity  of  their  affection  for  England  as  their  home,  peculiarly 
shared  the  characteristic  national  dislike  and  contempt  for  their  dis- 
tinctive national  adversary.  Nothing  illustrates  more  effectively  the 
progress  of  alienation  from  England  than  the  fact  that  at  the  close  of 
1775  leading  men  of  all  sections  were  looking  forward  to  an  alliance 
with  France  as  one  of  the  most  eff'ective  modes  of  relief.  Gradually 
this  approach  to  France,  which  at  tirst  was  one  solely  of  policy,  became, 
as  the  papers  hereafter  given  will  show,  one  of  affection. 

Of  Washington's  change  of  sentiment  in  this  relation  Guizot  thus 
writes : 

''It  is  the  property  of  great  men,  even  when  they  share  the  prejiulices  of  their  time 
and  of  their  conntry,  to  know  how  to  get  free  from  them  and  how  to  rise  snperior  to 
their  natural  habits  of  thought.  It  has  been  said  that,  as  a  matter  of  taste,  Wash- 
ington did  not  like  France,  and  had  no  confidence  in  lier ;  but  his  great  and  strong 
common  sense  had  enlightened  him  as  to  the  conditions  of  the  contest  he  had  entered 
upon.  He  knew  it  was  a  desperate  one;  he  foresaw  that  it  would  be  a  long  one ; 
better  than  anybody  he  knew  the  weaknesses  as  welt  as  the  merits  of  the  instruments 
which  he  had  at  disposal ;  he  had  learned  to  desire  the  alliance  and  the  aid  of  France. 

*  Chief-Justice  Oliver  thus  speaks,  on  May  3,  1776,  of  the  condition  of  the  refugees 
who,  on  the  evacuation  of  Boston,  were  carried  to  Halifax  and  there  left  to  shift  for 
themselves : 

"There  was  so  great  an  addition  to  the  inhabitants  from  the  navy  and  army  and 
refugees  from  Boston,  which  made  the  lodgings  for  them  very  scarce  to  be  had,  and 
many  of  them  when  procured,  quite  intolerable.  Provisions  were  here  as  dear  as 
in  London.  The  rents  of  houses  were  extravagant,  and  the  owners  of  them  took  all 
the  advantages  of  the  necessity  of  the  times;  so  that  I  knew  of  three  rooms  in  one 
house,  which  house  could  not  cost  £500  sterling,  let  for  £2&0  sterling  per  year.  Thus 
mankind  prey  upon  each  other."     (  2  Hutchinson's  Memoirs,  49.) 

313 


§  26.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  II. 

She  did  not  belie  his  hopes.  At  the  very  moment  when  Congress  was  refusing  to 
enter  into  negotiations  with  Great  Britain  as  long  as  a  single  English  soldier  remained 
on  American  soil,  rejoicings  and  thanksgivings  were  everywhere  throughout  the 
thirteen  Colonies  greeting  the  news  of  the  recognition  by  France  of  the  independence 
of  the  United  States.  The  treaties  of  alliance— a  triumph  of  diplomatic  ability  on 
the  part  of  Franklin— had  been  signed  at  Paris  on  the  6th  of  February,  1778."" 

It  does  uot  follow  from  this  chauge  of  sentiment  that  the  ties  which 
bound  English  colonists  in  America  to  the  ancestry  from  which  they 
sprang,  with  its  literature,  its  religion,  its  invaluable  institutions  of 
personal  liberty,  were  dissolved  by  the  war.  In  some  respects  the  war 
strengthened  them ;  its  disorders  and  desolateness  showing  their  value. 
But  as  an  ally  faithful  in  her  engagements  to  them  in  their  distress, 
France  as  a  nation  won  their  aftection  in  proportion  as  they  lost  their 
alfection  to  the  British  crown. 

^Ss*"  *"*  ''^^'*''  European        §  26.  It  has  been  already  observed  t  that  at  the 

very  outset  of  our  diplomatic  history,  while  it  was 
maintained  by  John  and  Samuel  Adams  and  the  Lees,  followed  by  a 
majority  of  Congress,  that  the  proper  course  for  the  new  republic  to 
pursue  was  to  send  ministers  to  every  foreign  state,  calling  for  recogni- 
tion and  aid,  this  was  resisted  by  Franklin,  who  took  the  position  that 
to  send  ministers  to  a  foreign  court  without  first  knowing  they  would 
be  received  was  inconsistent  with  diplomatic  usage,  would  be  detri- 
mental to  the  dignity  of  the  United  States,  and  would  probably  repel 
rather  than  conciliate.  Franklin,  however,  being  in  this  matter  over- 
ruled, ministers,  as  is  elsewhere  stated,  were  sent,  only  to  be  rebutted,  to 
the  leading  European  courts ;  even  recognition  not  being  granted  until 
required,  as  in  the  case  of  Spain  and  The  IS'etherlands,  by  the  exigen- 
cies of  war,  or,  in  the  cases  of  other  European  sovereignties,  by  the 
prior  recognition  by  the  parent  state.  | 

*5  Guizot's  History  of  France,  379.  t  Infra,  $  15.  j  Supra,  ^  19. 

314 


CHAPTER  III. 

ATTTIUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN  TO  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Kin- and  Parliament  ho8tiie,        §  27.  Georc^e  III  was  the  first  Britisli  kiiiff  of 

una  yielding  only  to  uocea-  j  ;->  » 

sity-  the  Hanoverian  line  wbo  was  not  obliged  to  go 

back  to  the  whig  revohition  of  1G8S  for  his  title. 
When  he  ascended  the  throne  there  were  no  adv^erse  claimants  setting- 
up  against  him  superior  "divine"  right.  The  consequence  was,  that 
the  tories  as  a  body  came  over  to  his  aid.  There  was  niucli  also  in  the 
tone  and  policy  of  the  great  revolutionary  families,  who  iiad  controlled 
affairs  during  the  reign  of  his  two  predecessors,  to  draw  popular  support 
from  the  whigs,  as  well  as  to  lead  the  king  to  look  on  them  with  dis- 
favor. Aside  from  this,  the  strong  will,  the  bigoted  temper,  the  obsti- 
nate egotism,  and  the  limited  education  of  George  III  made  him  look 
with  distrust  upon  free  institutions;  and  his  courage  and  obstinacy 
prompted  him  to  resist  to  the  utmost  of  his  power  a  revolution  which 
would,  if  successful,  not  only  humiliate  him,  but  dismember  his  empire. 
Nor  was  it  strange  that  the  two  houses  of  Parliament  should  unite 
with  the  king  in  the  determination  not  to  concede  to  the  Colonies  the 
liberties  they  claimed.  In  the  upper  house  the  whig  peers  had  lost,  so 
far  as  concerned  the  maintenance  of  distinctively  whig  principles,  their 
ascendency,  and  only  a  small  minority  supported  the  claims  of  the  Col- 
onies to  relief  from  i^arliamentary  taxation.  A  great  majority  of  the 
House  of  Commons  and  of  the  constituencies  which  this  house  repre- 
sented took  the  same  view  and  sustained  the  king,  and  the  king  con- 
tinued the  war  as  long  as  it  could  be  waged  without  ruin.  He  did 
so  by  sheer  force  of  will,  assisted  by  personal  courage  not  unmixed 
with  cunning.  His  correspondence  with  Lord  North,  as  now  published, 
shows  how  that  intelligent  though  irresolute  minister  yielded  his  own 
judgment  to  his  master's,  and  how  by  that  master  no  propositions  for 
conciliation  were  assented  to  until  it  was  obvious  they  were  too  late. 
It  was  in  vain  that  North  endeavored  to  persuade  his  master  that  every 
incident  of  the  war  showed  that  if  continued  it  would  end  in  Britain's 
defeat;  it  was  in  vain  that  these  views  were  sustained  by  Gower  and 
by  Dartmouth.  North,  always  unwilling  to  offend,  himself  greatly  in- 
debted to  the  king's  generosity  for  the  building  up  of  a  private  estate, 
shrank  from  bringing  matters  to  a  crisis  by  resigning,  and  in  this  way 
concessions  were  offered  always  too  late,  and  forces  were  sent  out 
which,  though  great,  were  always  insufficient,  until  the  surrender  at 

315 


§  27.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  III. 

Yorktown  left  no  other  course  open  thaa  the  acknowledgment  of  the 
independence  of  the  United  States. 

George  IIPs  retrospective  view  of  the  war  may  be  gathered  from  the 
following  extracts,  heretofore  unpublished,  from  his  letters  to  Shel- 
burne : 

**I  am  sorry  to  have  great  reason  to  say  that,  from  the  beginning  of  the  American 
troubles  to  the  retreat  of  Mr.  Fox,  this  government  has  not  taken  any  but  precipitate 
steps,  whilst  caution  and  system  have  been  used  by  the  Americans,  which  is  enough 
ground  to  explain  the  causes  of  the  present  differences  of  situations."  (George  III  to 
Shelburne,  Aug.  12,  1782,  Bancroft  MSS.) 

He  thus  reconciled  himself  to  the  peace : 

"  I  should  be  miserable  indeed  if  I  did  not  feel  that  no  blame  on  that  account  can  be 
laid  at  my  door,  aud  did  I  not  know  that  knavery  seems  to  be  so  much  the  striking 
feature  of  its  inhabitants,  that  it  may  not  in  the  end  be  an  evil  that  they  wilf  become 
aliens  to  the  kingdom."    (Same  to  same,  Nov.  10,  1782,  id.) 

A  curious  illustration  of  the  opposition  to  George  III  in  his  own 
family  is  thus  noticed  by  Dr.  0.  J.  Stille  in  his  Monograph  on  Count 
Eroglie,  published  in  the  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History,  January, 

1888 : 

*'The  marshal  [Broglie]  was  appointed  governor  of  the  three  bishoprics  of  Metz, 
ToAl,  and  Verdun,  aud  during  his  absence  from  his  post  his  place  was  filled  ad  interim 
by  the  count.  It  was  while  he  held  this  position,  in  1775,  that  his  name  became  con- 
nected with  an  event  the  influence  of  which  proved  momentous  in  our  American 
revolutionary  history.  The  Duke  of  Gloucester,  the  brother. of  George  III,  while 
traveling  in  France,  was  entertained  at  dinner  by  the  count  and  the  officers  of  the 
garrison  at  Metz.  Tbe  conversation  turned  upon  the  American  insurrection,  as  it  was 
then  called  in  France,  which  had  just  broken  out.  The  duke,  who,  with  his  brother, 
the  Duke  of  Cumberland,  held  very  different  opinions  concerning  the  insurgents  from 
those  entertained  by  George  III,  did  not  hesitate  to  express  his  sympathy  with  the 
Americans,  and  explained  their  position.  We  know  how  the  conversation  at  that 
dinner  affected  one  of  the  guests,  the  young  Marquis  de  La  Fayette;  and  it  would 
not,  perhaps,  be  going  too  far  to  say  that  it  planted  in  the  raind  of  the  Count  de  Brog- 
lie the  germ  of  that  idea  which  grew  in  time  to  a  stadtholderate  as  the  best  means  of 
aiding  us  in  our  struggle."* 

*  As  to  Broglie,  see  infr*,  $  76.  Hume,  though  a  doctrinaire  tory,  was  even  at  the 
outset  a  disbeliever  in  the  policy  of  attempting  the  forcible  subjugation  of  America. 
In  a  letter  to  Strahan,  then  a  member  of  Parliament,  of  October  26, 177.5,  he  argued  in 
favor  of  abandoning  the  attempt.  To  do  this  at  that  time,  he  said,  "only  anticipates 
the  necessary  course  of  events  a  few  years;  that  a  forced  and  every-day  precarious 
monopoly  of  about  £600,000  or  £700,000  a  year  of  manufactures  was  not  worth  contend- 
ing for;  that  we  should  preserve  tlie  greater  i>art  of  this  trade,  even  if  the  ports  of 
America  were  open  to  all  nations ;  that  it  was  very  likely,  in  our  method  of  proceeding, 
that  we  should  be  disappointed  in  our  scheme  of  conquering  the  Colonies;  and  that  we 
ought  to  think  beforehand  how  we  were  to  govern  them  after  they  were  conquered. 
Arbitrary  power  can  extend  its  oppressive  arm  to  the  antipodes,  but  a  limited  govern- 
ment can  never  be  long  upheld  at  a  distance,  even  where  no  disgusts  have  intervened, 
much  less  where  such  violent  animosities  have  taken  place.  We  must,  therefore,  annul 
all  the  charters,  abolish  every  denaocratical  power  in  every  colony,  repeal  the  habeas 
corpus  act  with  regard  to  them,  invest  every  governor  with  full  discretionary  or  arbi- 
trary powers,  confiscate  the  estates  of  the  chief  planters,  and  hang  three-fourths  of 
their  clergy.     To  execute  such  acts  of  destructive  violence  twenty  thousand  men  will 

316 


CHAP.  III.]  REFUGEE    DIPLOMACY.  [§  28. 

Diplomacy  of  letugeee.  §  28.  The  American  refugees  in  England  dur- 

ing the  devolution  fall  into  two  classes.  There 
were  those — snch  as  Curwen  and  Shoemaker — who  went  there  nuder  the 
stress  of  a  double  allegiance,  as  they  conceived  it,  to  wait  in  retirement 
the  resnlt  of  a  war  as  to  which,  if  they  had  remained  at  home,  they 
would  have  been  forced  to  have  taken  sides.  There  were  those,  on  the 
other  hand,  who  went  to  England  as  the  champions  of  the  royal  cause 
in  America,  driven  from  America  because  of  their  devotion  to  this  cause, 
appearing  before  Throne  and  Parliament  as  its  diplomatic  represent- 
not  he  sufficient,  nor  thirty  tliousand  to  maintain  them  in  so  wide  aud  disjointed  a 
territory.  And  who  are  to  pay  so  great  an  army  ?  The  colonists  cau  not  at  any  time, 
much  less  after  reducing  them  to  such  a  state  of  desolation.  We  ought  not,  and  in- 
deed can  not,  in  the  overloaded  or  rather  overwhelmed  and  totally  ruined  state  of  our 
tinances."     (Hume's  Letters  to  Strahan  (Oxford,  1888),  288.) 

Lord  George  Germain,  afterwards  Viscount  Sackville,  to  whom,  as  colonial  sec- 
retary under  Lord  North,  was  intrusted  the  management  of  British  interests  in 
America  for  seven  j^ears,  was  the  second  son  of  the  first  Duke  of  Dorset.  He  was 
born  in  1716,  aud  in  1759  commauded,  without  much  credit  to  himself,  the  British 
aud  Hanoverian  cavalry  at  the  battle  of  Miuden.  Tried  by  court-martial,  he  was 
convicted  of  cowardice  iu  the  action,  dismissed  the  service,  aud  stricken  from 
the  list  of  privy  councilors.  He  subsequently  entered  Parliament,  where  his  energy 
and  oratorical  gifts  gave  him  much  influence,  and  by  a  duel  he  invited,  on  his 
courage  being  assailed,  he  to  some  extent  recovered  himself  from  the  stain  he  received 
at  Miudeu.  In  1775,  in  his  sixtieth  year,  he  became  colonial  secretary,  when  he  took 
the  lead  in  the  debates  on  the  American  war.  In  this  X'ositiou  he  bore  the  chief 
brunt  of  the  attacks  of  the  whig  opposition.  *I  am  glad,'  said  Lord  North  to  Fox, 
after  one  of  these  encounters,  'that  you  have  left  off  attacking  an  old  hulk  like 
myself,  and  that  to-day,  when  you  were  in  fine  feather,  you  fell  upon  a  man-of-war. 
However  equivocal  the  last  words  of  this  congratulation  may  have  been,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  Germain  was,  what  North  was  not,  iu  earnest  in  the  war  aud  sanguine  of 
victory,  until  the  battle  of  Yorktown  made  him  give  up  hope.  A  singular  episode 
in  Germaiu's  history  was  his  extraordinary  iutimacy  with  Benjamin  Thompson 
(afterwards  Count  Rumford),  who  was  for  a  time  his  private  secretary,  to  whom  his 
most  secret  counsels  seem  to  have  been  imparted.  As  to  the  nature  of  this  intimacy 
there  was  much  talk,  and  the  worst  construction  of  it  was  suggested  by  Hutchinson, 
in  his  memoirs,  (ii,  289,337,  and  by  Shelburne,  in  a  sketch  of  Germaiu,  left  in  manu- 
scrii)t  among  the  Lansdowne  papers.  [This  passage  was  suppressed  when  the  sketch 
was  afterwards  published  in  Shelburne's^Life,  by  Fitzmaurice.]  The  allusions  by 
Hutchinson  may  perhaps  be  explained  by  the  hypothesis  that  Thompson,  who  was 
born  aud  educated  in  Massachusetts,  communicated  to  American  agents  in  Londou 
some  of  the  secrets  with  which  he  was  charged.  Thompson's  career  was  singularly 
versatile,  and  more  than  once  during  it  was  he  suspected  of  political  double-dealing. 
(See  Ellis'  Life  of  Thompson.)  Towards  the  close  of  North's  ministry  Lord  Germain 
was  created  Viscount  Sackville.  An  animated  protest  was  made  against  this  act  by 
leading  whig  peers.  He  died  in  1785.  Of  his  last  days  a  curious  account  is  given  in 
Cumberland's  memoirs. 

In  the  London  Moruing  Post  for  June  7,  1781,  is  the  following: 

**Itis  said  that  Mr.  Thompson,  secretary  to  Lord  George  Germain,  is  about  raising 
a  regiment  of  horse,  of  which  he  is  to  be  made  colonel  as  soon  as  it  is  completed,  and 
immediately  to  go  to  America.  Who  can  believe  it  ?  "  There  is  no  clew  given  as 
to  the  disqualificatioQS  which  the  four  last  words  hint. 

In  Shelbiirne's  manuscript  notes  on  Germaiu  (see  1  Shelburne's  Life,  358)  it  is  stated 
that  the  omission,  in  the  British  colonial  office,  to  forward  an  alleged  instruction  from 

317 


§  28.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  III. 

atives,  presenting  its  interests  as  fairly  as  they  could,  when  we  take 
into  consideration  that  ])rominent  among  these  interests  were  their  res- 
toration to  office  and  their  recovery  of  their  estates.  As  the  leading 
representative  of  the  latter  class  may  be  considered  Thomas  Hutchin- 
son, royalist  governor  of  Massachusetts,  whose  remarkable  diary  has 
lately  been  given  to  the  press  with  a  candor  and  fullness  for  which  its 
editor  deserves  great  credit.*     Hutchinson,  driven  from  Massachusetts 

Germain  to  Howe  to  joiu  liurgoyiie  on  the  Hndson  was  duo  to  Germain's  culpable 
negligence  in  postponing  the  signature  of  the  instruction  until  it  was  mislaid. 

*'  It  might  appear  incredible  if  his  own  secretary  and  the  most  respectable  persons  in 
office  had  not  assured  me  of  the  fact;  what  corroborates  it  is  that  it  can  be  accounted 
for  in  no  other  way."  The  instruction  was  found  in  Germain's  office  after  Bur- 
goyne's  surrender.     (Fonblauque's  Burgoyue,  233 ;  1  Jones'  History  of  New  York,  696. ) 

' '  But  though  this  particular  instruction  may  have  been  thus  lost,  yet  the  general  tenor 
of  other  instructions  in  Howe's  hands  were  such  as  to  impose  on  him  the  duty  which 
this  lost  paper  specifically  enforced."  (See  Burgoyne's  "Narrative,"  where  this  is 
urged. ) 

Fox,  in  a  speech,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  on  May  3, 1779  (20  Parliamentary  Reg- 
ister, 735),  seems  to  have  had  this  neglect  of  duty  in  mind  : 

'^Instead  of  being  in  town  w^hen  efi"ective  measures,  directed  to  vigorous  exertions 
and  a  proper  employment  of  our  national  strength  and  resources,  ought  steadily  to 
engage  their  attention,  the  two  noble  lords  (North  and  Germain)  and  the  rest  of  their 
brethren  in  the  cabinet  will  ^y  from  the  fatigues  of  their  office  ;  they  will  be  amusing 
themselves  at  their  country  seats  for  weeks,  x>erhai}8  months,  together,  and  the  great 
business  of  the  nation  will  be  left  to  the  care  of  a  few  clerks  in  office ;  or  if  they 
should  in  their  respective  retreats  turn  their  attention  at  all  to  public  affairs,  it  will 
be  only  to  devise  means  not  for  the  defeat  of  their  enemies,  but  to  defeat  inquiries 
into  their  blunders,  incapacity,  and  neglect  in  Parliament." 

Of  Lord  Sandwich,  ''first  lord  of  the  admiralty,"  Hume,  in  a  letter  to  Strahan,  of 
May  10,  1776,  thus  Avrites  : 

"  When  we  passed  by  Spiue  Hill,  near  Newbury,  we  found  in  the  inn  Lord  Denbigh, 
who  was  an  acquaintance  of  my  fellow-traveler.  His  lordship  informed  me  that  he. 
Lord  Sandwich,  Lord  Mulgrave,  Mr.  Banks,  and  two  or  three  ladies  of  pleasure  had 
passed  five  or  six  days  there,  and  intended  to  pass  all  this  week  and  the  next  in  the 
same  place;  that  their  chief  object  was  to  enjoy  the  trouting  season  ;  that  they  had 
been  very  successful ;  that  Lord  Sandwich,  in  particular,  had  caught  trout  near 
20  inches  long,  which  gave  him  incredible  satisfaction.  ^  *  *  I  do  not 
remember  in  all  my  little  or  great  knowledge  of  history  (according  as  you  and  Dr. 
Johnson  can  settle  between  you  the  degrees  of  my  knowledge)  such  another  instance, 
and  I  am  sure  such  a  one  does  not  exist ;  that  the  first  lord  of  the  admiralty,  who  is 
absolute  and  uncontrolled  master  in  his  department,  should,  at  a  time  when  the  fate 
of  the  British  Empire  is  in  dependence,  and  in  dependence  on  him,  find  so  much 
leisure,  tranquillity,  presence  of  mind,  and  magnanimity  as  to  have  annisement  in 
trouting  during  three  weeks  nearly  sixty  miles  from  the  scene  of  business  and  during 
the  most  critical  season  of  the  year.  There  needs  but  this  single  fact  to  decide  the 
fate  of  the  nation.  TVItat  an  ornament  would  it  he  in  a  future  history  to  open  the  glorious 
events  of  the  ensuing  year  with  the  narrative  of  so  singular  an  incident.'^  (Hume's  Letters 
to  Strahan  (Oxford,  1888),  324.) 

That  Hume  should  not  have  noticed  as  another  ominous  incident  the  character  of 
the  companions  Sandwich  took  with  him  when  trouting  may  illustrate  a  similar  public 
indifference  to  the  dissoluteness  of  the  orgies  of  Howe,  already  noticed. 

*  Diary  and  Letters  of  Thomas  Hutchinson,  by  Peter  Orlando  Hutchinson,  London  ; 
vol.  i,  1883;  vol.  ii,  1886. 

318 


CHAP.  111.]  REFUGEE    DIPLOMACY.  [§  28. 

by  the  revolutiouary  leaders,  arrived  in  London,  on  the  hist  day  of  June, 
1774.  It  shows  how  important  a  person  he  then  was  in  the  eye  of  king- 
antl  of  ministry,  and  how  eager  they  were  to  obtain  his  views,  that  on 
the  day  of  liis  arrival  he  *' received  a  card  from  Lord  Dartmouth,  desir- 
ing to  see  me  at  his  house  before  1  o'clock,"  and  that  by  Dartmouth  he 
was  carried  "  immediately  to  the  king,"  though  he  was  not  "  dressed  as 
expecting  to  go  to  court."  A  long  conversation  ensued.  At  its  outset, 
certain  letters,  approving  of  Hutchinson's  course  being  produced,  the 
king  said  to  Dartmouth,  "1  do  not  see  how  it  could  be  otherwise.  I 
am  sure  his  (Hutchinson's)  conduct  has  been  universally  api)roved  of 
here  by  people  of  all  parties."  There  was  then  some  conversation  about 
the  letters,  the  disclosure  of  which,  through  Franklin's  agency,  had 
lately  brought  so  much  odium  on  Hutchinson,  and  then  came  the  fol- 
lowing: 

"  K.  Where  is  Dr.  F.,  my  lord  ? 

"  Lord  D.  I  believe,  sir,  ho  is  in  towu.  He  was  going  to  America,  but  I  fancy^  he  is 
not  gone. 

**  K.  I  heard  he  was  going  to  Switzerland  or  to  some  part  of  the  continent. 

''Lord  D.  I  think,  sir,  there  has  been  such  a  report. 

"  K.  In  such  abuse,  Mr.  H.,  as  you  met  with,  I  suppose  there  must  have  been  per- 
sonal malevolence  as  well  as  party  rage  ?" 

Some  gossiping  talk  followed  about  Hancock,  Gushing,  and  Samuel 
Adams.  Then  came  a  statement  somewhat  singular,  when  we  re- 
member that  Hutchinson  was  a  leading  deacon  in  the  Congregational 
Church  : 

"  K.  I  have  heard,  Mr.  H.,  that  your  ministers  i^reach  that,  for  the  sake  of  promot- 
ing liberty  or  the  public  good,  any  immorality  or  less  evil  may  be  tolerated. 

"  H.  I  don't  know,  sir,  that  such  doctrine  has  ever  been  preached  from  the  puli)it, 
but  I  have  no  doubt  thcd  it  has  been  publicly  asserted  by  some  of  the  heads  of  the  party, 
who  call  themselves  sober  men,  that  the  good  of  the  iiublic  is  above  all  other  considerations, 
and  that  truth  may  be  dispensed  tvith  and  immorality  is  excusable  when  this  great  good  can 
be  obtained  by  such  means.^^ 

This  extraordinary  announcement,  tending  to  show  that  it  was  a 
moral  as  well  as  a  political  duty  to  put  down  the  insurgents,  was  fol- 
lowed by  rambling  talk  on  dissent  in  general  and  on  the  different  kinds 
of  dissenters.  Then  came  an  interlude  on  climate,  and  on  grains,  graz- 
ing, and  Indians.  "The  king  was  particular  in  many  other  inquiries 
r<elative  to  my  administration,  to  the  state  of  the  province,  and  the  other 
colonies.  I  have  minuted  what  remained  the  clearest  in  my  mind,  and 
as  near  the  order  in  which  they  passed  as  I  am  able.  He  asked  also 
what  part  of  my  family  I  brought  with  me  and  what  I  left  behind,  and 
at  length  advised  me  to  keep  house  a  few  days  for  the  recovery  of  my 
health.  I  then  withdrew.  I  was  near  two  hours  in  the  K.'s  closet.  Lord 
D.  feared  I  was  tired  so  long  standing."  This  was  not  unnatural  in  Lord 
D.,  considering  Hutchinson's  exhaustion  when  he  arrived.  But  he 
was  more  cheerful  under  the  infliction  than  Miss  Burney,  when  put  to 
similar  torture.     "  I  observed  that  so  gracious  a  reception  made  me 

319 


§  28.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  III. 

insensible  of  it  ^'  (the  fatigue).  The  salient  feature  of  the  interview  con- 
sisted in  Hutchinson's  statement  that  even  the  "'  sober ''  part  of  the 
insurgents  held  that  truth  and  morality  were  to  be  subordinated  to 
their  notion  of  public  good.* 

Several  letters  written  by  him  within  the  next  fortnight  are  given, 
specifying  the  attentions  paid  him  by  men  of  rank,  political  or  social. 
To  them,  as  well  as  to  his  correspondents  in  America,  he  declared 
that  he  considered  the  Boston  port  bill  as  a  necessity,  but  that,  on  a 
rescinding  by  the  provincial  legislature  of  their  ofi'ensive  action  and 
a  proper  submission  to  crown  and  Parliament,  necessity,  he  believed, 
would  cease  to  call  for  such  stringent  discipline.  When,  on  July  7,  he 
had  an  interview  with  Lord  North,  it  was  to  hear,  and  without  anything 
more  than  a  feeble  dissent,  that  the  crown,  as  a  further  penalty  on  Mas- 
sachusetts, was  disposed  to  abrogate  the  provincial  charter.  It  is  due 
to  Hutchinson,  at  the  same  time,  to  say  that  the  terms  of  conciliation 
he  proposed  at  this  juncture  were  submission  to  Parliament  with  the 
understanding  that  the  Boston  port  bill  should  be  repealed  and  that  the 
Colonies  were  not  to  be  in  future  taxed  without  their  consent.  This 
was  the  diplomatic  position  of  the  refugees  in  1774  and  1775,  at  a  time 
when,  had  they  succeeded  in  obtaining  these  terms  from  England, 
they  could  have  returned  to  America  as  masters  of  the  situation,  rec<5g- 
nized  on  both  sides  of  the  water  as  the  restorers  of  peace  and  the  framers 
of  a  system  which  would  secure  local  government  while  acknowledging 
the  nominal  supremacy  of  the  British  Parliament. 

But  refugee  diplomacy  of  1774-'75,  when,  if  successful,  the  American 
negotiators  could  have  returned  on  the  top  of  the  liberal  wave,  was  a 
very  different  thing  from  refugee  diplomacy  in  1777-'81,  when,  through 
British  misconduct,  as  heretofore  related,  America  was  roused  to  an 
indignation  which  would  tolerate  no  concessions  short  of  independence. 
Independence  would  have  destroyed  the  future  of  the  refugees,  of  whom 
Hutchinson  was  the  leading  representative.  The  more  intense  became 
the  antagonism  of  America,  and  particularly  of  Massachusetts,  to  the 
mother  country,  the  less  j^robable  was  his  restoration  to  his  high  office, 
to  his  great  possessions,  to  the  home  he  so  dearly  loved.  Hence  it  was 
that  he  and  the  ministry  crossed  each  other  on  the  conciliation  ques- 
tion, going  in  opposite  directions.  When  he  proposed  in  1774-75  the 
compromise  of  submission  without  taxation  the  government  scouted  at 
it,  and  when  he  thought  the  Boston  port  bill  severe  they  thought  it  a 
proper  method  of  discipline.  But  in  1777-^78,  when  the  ministry  pro- 
posed to  repeal  the  port  bill  and  to  lay  no  more  taxes  if  America  would 
submit,  he  was  overwhelmed  with  distress.  Such  a  measure  meant  his 
exclusion  from  the  soil  to  which  he  was  tenderly  attached  and  the  af- 

*  Of  this  interview  George  III,  in  a  note  dated  July  1,  1774,  to  Lord  North,  says: 
"Just  seen  Mr.  Hutchinson,  late  governor  of  Massachusetts,  and  am  now  convinced 
they  will  submit.  He  owns  the  Boston  port  bill  to  have  been  the  only  wise  and 
efifectual  method."    (See  1  Brougham's  Statesmen,  etc.,  85.) 

320 


CHAP,  ni.]  REFUGEE    DIPLOMACY.  [§  28. 

firmance  ot  the  confiscation  of  bis  estates  5  for  it  was  one  of  the  most 
discreditable  features  of  Lord  Nortli's  compromise  measure  tbat  it  gave 
no  protection  to  tbe  loyalists  who  bad  made  enormous  sacrifices  in  the 
royal  cause,  but  left  them  at  tbe  mercy  of  tbe  provincial  governments. 
It  is  tbe  consciousness  of  this,  coupled  witb  a  consciousness  tbat  king 
and  courtiers  wbo  bad  welcomed  bim  so  conspicuously  in  177d-'75,  bad 
begun  to  turn  coldly  from  bim,  tbat  makes  bis  diary  one  of  tbe  saddest 
as  well  as  most  interesting  tbat  was  ever  written.  He  narrated  con- 
versation after  conversation  in  wliicb  be  drew  from  supporters  of  tbe 
ministry  tbeir  doubts  as  to  tbe  Nortb  compromise,  and  tben  sougbt  to 
confirm  tbem  in  tbose  doubts.  Tbus  of  Cornwall,  speaker  of  tbe  bouse, 
wbo,  on  January  31, 1778,  mentioned  wbat  tbe  proposal  to  tbe  Colonies 
migbt  be,  be  asked :  ''  But  to  whom  is  tbis  proposal  to  be  made,  or  what 
security  can  be  given  for  any  compliance  witb  it  ?  "  To  another  ministe- 
rialist, on  February  13,  he  said  that  ''all  would  be  scouted  and  ridi- 
culed." It  was  no  satisfaction  for  bim  to  bear  in  reply  tbat  ''something 
must  be  done.  The  country  party  was  going  oft*;  they  bad  lost  fifty 
members;  they  should  not  have  a  majority  of  twenty  if  something  was 
not  done."     On  the  next  day  Hutchinson  made  the  following  entry: 

"  Tuesday,  tlio  17tb,  is  appoiufced  for  Lord  North's  plan  to  come  before  the  house, 
Ho  never  was  so  much  perplexed  before,  and  his  friends  think  he  is  making  bad 
worse." 

On  the  17th  be  met  Lord  Hardwicke,  and  what  Hutchinson  either 
said  or  hinted  we  may  gather  from  what  be  told  us  of  Hardwicke,  wbo, 
he  said,  "seems  willing  to  give  up  all,  but  is  confused  in  bis  notions  of 
government,  as  every  man  must  be  when  be  departs  from  the  funda- 
mental prnciples  and  admits  governed  to  be  governors."  With  Lord 
Hillsborough  he  had  a  significant  conversation  on  February  20,  after 
Lord  North's  conciliatory  bill  had  been  offered: 

*'He  (Hillsborough)  agreed  that  all  the  best  men  in  the  kingdom  were  voting  iu 
Parliament  for  a  measure  they  disapproved  of.  But  one  of  the  cabinet  was  iu  it ; 
that  was  Lord  Dartmouth,  He  did  not  know  but  Lord  Weymouth  might  think  less 
unfavorably  than  lord  president,  lord  chancellor,  lord  Suffolk,  and  Lord  Sandwich, 
who  were  utterly  against  it.  I  asked  if  the  king  did  not  countenance  it?  He 
thought  the  K.  would  never,  thwart  his  minister,  and  would  rather,  when  dissatisfied, 
change  him." 

On  the  20th  he  met  Jenkinson  (afterwards  Lord  Liverpool),  "  who  is 
very  silent,  cold,  and  reserved  j  asked  a  question  or  two.  He  answered 
be  had  no  hand  in  what  was  doing.  It  not  being  one  of  tbe  mollia 
teinpora,  I  withdrew.  Everybody  where  I  go  is  out  of  temper.  What 
can  be  more  unpleasant  than  to  bo  obliged  to  vote  for  what  they  utterly 
disapproved  ?  "  And  no  doubt  Hutchinson  stimulated,  as  far  as  he  pru- 
dently could,  this  ill-temper  and  disapproval.  The  day  was  over  when 
he  could  be  welcomed  back  to  bis  beloved  country  as  a  messenger  of 
peace.  His  only  chauce  of  restoration  was  by  military  force.  Concil- 
iation would  make  bis  enemies  supreme.  His  cherished  home  at  Milton, 
21  WH  321 


§  28.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  III. 

the  most  beautiful  couutry  seatou  the  coast,  his  spacious  Boston  house, 
his  position  as  governor,  could  now  be  restored  for  him  only  by  such 
overwhelmiug  military  force  as  would  desolate  the  land.  His  despair 
increased  as  time  passed  on,  and  as  the  want  of  permanent  military  suc- 
cess made  the  ministry  more  and  more  desirous  of  compromise.  On 
April  4,  1778,  he  called  again  on  Cornwall,  "  who  I  saw  by  his  coun- 
tenance to  be  engaged,  and  had  only  two  or  three  words.  I  said  1  had 
no  concern  for  myself,  but  I  had  no  prospect  for  my  children.  He  bid 
me  not  be  concerned ;  government  would  not  let  them  suffer.  America, 
he  said,  was  lost.  Unnecessarily,  I  thought,  given  up,  Most  shame- 
fully, he  added." 

On  June  2  comes  the  following: 

"The  letters  from  New  York  lament  the  conclHatory  measures,  as  they  are  called, 
fearing  they  will  make  the  Americans  more  tenacious  of  their  independence;  speak 
of  a  treaty  as  a  matter  uucertaiu,  but  rather  believe  they  will  not  come  to  it." 

The  *'  people  in  New  York,"  that  is  to  say,  the  loyalists  who  remained 
iu  the  city  after  its  capture  by  the  British,  therefore  resisted,  as  did 
Hutchinson,  ^'  conciliation,"  embracing,  as  the  measure  did,  opeuing  of 
American  ports,  relief  from  British  taxation,  and  local  self-government. 
Whatever  might  have  been  their  position  in  1774  and  1775,  in  1778  the 
only  terms  that  would  satisfy  them  would  be  such  annihilation  of  the  pro- 
vincial governments  as  would  restore  them  to  colonial  power  and  secure  to 
them  their  confiscated  estates.  And  it  is  an  interesting  fact  that  among 
those  who  called  themselves  subjects  of  George  III  none  were  at  this 
time  more  discontented  than  these  loyalists.  Hutchinson  was  pecul- 
iarly favored  by  the  crown.  He  had  a  large  pension  and  several  of  his 
fiimily  were  provided  for.  Yet  on  June  9,  1778,  immediately  after  ac- 
knowledging having  secured  a  salary  for  his  brother,  comes  the  follow- 
ing: '^Everybody  complains  of  the  languor  and  inactivity  in  imblic 
affairs."  His  diary,  after  the  first  year  of  his  residence,  had  been  grad- 
ually losing  that  interest  which  is  derived  from  intimacy  with  men  of 
high  political  station.  His  old  tory  notion,  it  is  true,  that  power,  as  he 
expressed  it,  was  to  come  from  governors  to  governed,  and  not  from 
governed  to  governors,  became  even  more  intense,  and  his  theoretical 
loyalty  to  the  crown  even  more  abject.  But  his  idols  were  becoming 
personally  sick  of  him  and  he  personally  tired  of  his  idols.  It  is  true 
that  he  assiduously  attended  the  royal  levees;  that  he  loyally  (on 
June  10,  1778)  concurred  in  the  king's  remark  that  ''some  of  the  wick- 
edness of  the  times  went  from  hence  to  America;"  and  that  when  the 
king  said,  ''They  are  a  sad  nest/'  he  replied,  "  I  hope,  sir,  they  will  be 
broken  up  in  time."  It  is  true  also  that  afterwards  (June  24,  1779), 
when  the  king  dilated  on  the  "  wickedness"  of  the  whig  opposition,  he 
replied,  loyally  enough,  that  he  "detested  them."  But  while  humble 
subserviency  was  expected  of  him,  his  advice  was  no  longer  sought. 
He  found  himself  no  longer  welcomed  even  by  the  king.  He  complained 
322 


CHAP.  III.]  REFUGEE    DIPLOMACY.  [§  28. 

that  Lord  North  Dever  approached  him  ou  the  subject  of  those  coucili- 
ation  measures  which,  if  successful,  would  have  sacrificed  himself  and 
other  refugees  who  had  been  banished  and  whose  property  had  been 
seized.  The  inabilit}'  of  the  ministers  to  crush  the  "  rebellion  "  in  Amer- 
ica he  attributed  either  to  their  folly  or  to  the  inefficiency  of  their  sub- 
alterns. When  Lord  Hillsborough,  to  whose  persuasions  ho  attrib- 
uted his  acceptance  of  the  Massachusetts  governorship,  listened  coldly 
to  his  advice,  he  turned  bitterly  away,  groaning  over  the  ingratitude  of 
men  in  power.  On  March  9,  1770,  hearing  of  Lord  Suffolk's  death,  he 
says :  "  He  took  great  notice  of  me  when  I  first  came  to  England,  but 
I  have  never  yet  met  with  any  person  who,  when  I  asked  anything  for 
any  of  my  family  or  friends,  would  make  use  of  their  inlluence  in 
my  behalf  J  which  I  attribute  to  a  fear  lest  it  be  considered  us  a  favor 
which,  if  granted  at  their  request,  would  lessen  their  claims  for  them- 
selves or  some  of  their  connections;"  and  then,  as  if  pointing  out  the 
retribution  on  such  nepotism,  he  added  that  "  he  left  no  children,"  and 
that  the  probability  was  that  ^'  the  title  would  go  to  a  very  remote  re- 
lation." "  I  never  was  more  disordered  in  speaking  to  the  king  than 
to-day,"  so  he  writes  on  March  29,  1779;  '^and  by  his  sudden  turning 
and  speaking  to  the  next  person  I  think  he  discovered  it."  No  longer 
do  we  meet  with  notices  of  royal  and  ministerial  honors  conferred  on 
him,  though  he  continued  to  enjoy  his  large  pension.  We  hear,  indeed, 
of  leading  ministers,  but  it  is  in  terms  of  reprobation ;  and  what  is  told 
of  them  is  matter  of  gossip — the  profligacy  of  Lord  Sandwich,  the  worse 
than  profligacy  of  Lord  George  Germain.  In  the  meantime  the  life  of 
the  weary  exile  was  hastening  to  its  close  under  shadows  deepening  each 
day.  "  Government,"  he  exclaimed,  on  November  24,  1779,  ''  has  failed 
in  all  its  measures,  merely  for  want  of  fit  officers  to  carry  them  into 
execution;"  but  for  this  improper  selection  of  officers  and  its  own 
temporising  policy  government  was  nevertheless  to  blame.  Domestic 
troubles  came  in  to  further  depress  him.  His  married  children  came  to 
him  with  their  families  for  support,  they  deserting  all  they  had  in  Bos- 
ton for  England,  where  they  expected  a  sympathetic  welcome,  but 
where  the  only  welcome  they  received,  and  that  a  sad  one,  was  from 
him.  His  two  younger  children  ('^  Peggy"  and  ^' Billy),"  on  whom  his 
love  seemed  concentrated,  died  of  consumption,  he  thought  produced 
by  the  uncongenial  climate.  His  great  desire  had  been  to  be  carried 
back  to  Boston,  if  not  for  death,  at  least  for  burial  in  the  grave-yard 
where  lay  four  generations  of  his  ancestors.  But  this  was  denied  him, 
and  on  June  3,  1780,  he  died  iu  London,  in  part  at  least  from  a  broken 
heart,  and  was  laid  next  his  daughter  "Peg^y,"  at  the  church  at 
Croyden. 

Franklin  and  Hutchinson  were  together  in  London  for  some  months  in 
1774  and  1775,  though  without  meeting.  Each  was  at  this  time  desirous 
of  a  reconciliation  between  the  Colonies  and  the  mother  country.  Each 
worked  iu  his  own  fashion  to  bring  about  such  a  reconciliation  as  he 

323 


§  29.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  III. 

approved.  Each  had  been  a  holder  of  high  office  under  the  British 
crown.  But  in  one  material  point  they  differed.  Franklin  was  leaving 
England  for  America  because  he  was  determined  to  cast  his  fortunes 
with  America,  her  liberty  being,  as  he  considered,  essential  to  her  polit- 
ical existence.  Hutchinson  left  America  for  England  because  he  regarded 
British  supremacy  as  essential  even  to  America's  prosperity.  Franklin 
insisted  on  self-government  for  the  Colonies,  and  if  this  could  not  be 
secured,  on  independence.  Hutchinson  abhorred  this  autonomy,  which 
would  be  as  destructive  of  his  personal  interests  as  of  his  i^olitical  princi- 
ples. Hence  it  was  that  their  lines  of  action  became  more  and  more  diverg- 
ent. Hutchinson  represented  the  diplomacy  of  retrogression  and  repres- 
sion, the  diplomacy  of  Strafford,  which  would  coerce  colonial  dependence 
by  blood.  Franklin  represented  the  diplomacy  of  progressive  liberal- 
ism, of  which  colonial  liberty,  or,  if  not  granted,  colonial  independence, 
was  the  primary  requisite.  The  diplomacy  of  Franklin  after  1776  was 
employed  to  obtain  liberty  and  independence  for  America,  which  after- 
wards was  to  result  in  vastly  increasing  the  resources  of  Britain.  The 
diplomacy  of  Hutchinson  was  strained  to  destroy  American  liberty  and 
independence,  and  in  this  to  make  America,  to  repeat  again  Chatham's 
words,  the  fit  instrument  to  destroy  British  liberty.*  And  it  is  remark- 
able how,  in  Hutchinson's  diplomatic  efforts,  as  representing  American 
loyalism,  these  objects  converged.  To  put  down  the  liberal  opposition 
of  England,  which  the  king  and  he  so  cordially  agreed  to  detest,  was  a 
work  to  be  pursued  with  the  same  implacable  thoroughness  as  was  the 
putting  down  the  revolutionary  opposition  in  the  United  States. 

Attempts  to  break  the  French        §  29.  When  the  alliance  of  1778  between  France 

alliance.  "^ 

and  the  United  States  became  known,  the  first 
impulse  in  England  was  to  declare  war  against  France;  the  second,  to 
separate  the  allies.  To  bring  about  this  separation  two  courses  were 
pursued.  The  first  was  sending  appeals  to  America,  to  circulate  which 
the  device  of ''  intercepted  letters  "  was  resorted  to.  Conspicuous  among 
these  were  Deane's  letters,  which  appeared,  after  his  apostacy,  in  Riv- 

*  This  was  the  general  temper  of  the  refugees  of  the  tory  stamp.  Thus  wo  have  the 
following : 

''Remonstrate  loudly  to  those  in  authority  against  treating  with  Congress.  Treat- 
ing with  them  is  establishiug  them.  *  *  *  Though  we  should  even  conquer  the 
rebels,  yet,  if  an  accommodation  is  settled  with  the  Cougress,  I  shall  consider  the  Col- 
onies as  eventually  lost,  and  that  in  a  little  time,  to  Great  Britain."  (New  York  tory 
letter  of  May  14,  1779,  iu  London  Chronicle  for  July  3-6,  1779.) 

Hutchinson's  pension  was  £2,000.  It  was  granted  to  him  immediately  on  his  ar- 
rival in  England,  and  was  to  continue  until  he  was  able  to  resume  his  governorship. 
The  largeness  of  this  pension  shows  that  the  ministry  regarded  it  as  only  temporary, 
and  that  they  had  no  expectation  of  ultimate  disaster,  and  no  conception  of  the  enor- 
mous claims  to  be  subsequently  brought  against  them  by  refugees. 

As  embodying  Hutchinson's  distinctive  views,  see  address  of  American  loyalists  in 
London  Morning  Post,  March  5,  1782,  urging  necessity  of  prosecuting  the  war  till  the 
rebellion  be  crushed. 

324 


CHAP.  III.]  BRITISH    CORRUPTION    AND    FORGERY.  [§  30. 

iugton's  (Royal)  Gazette,  and  which  consisted  chiefly  in  ingenious  argu- 
ments to  the  disparagement  of  France  and  the  praise  of  Britain  as  the 
true  friend  of  the  United  States.*  Tlie  second  course  followed  was  that 
of  diplomatic  efforts  to  induce  France  to  desert  the  United  States,  the 
most  conspicuous  of  which  was  the  offer  of  Minorca  to  the  Russian 
empress  on  condition  that  she,  as  mediator  in  the  then  proi)osed  medi- 
ation, should  persuade  France  to  withdraw  all  her  troops  and  ships 
from  America.t  Direct  approaches  also  were  made  to  bring  about  such 
a  separation.  There  is  now  no  doubt  that  Hartley's  letters  to  Franklin 
on  the  superiority  of  an  English  to  a  French  alliance  were  instigated 
by  Lord  North.  Nor  can  there  be  now  any  doubt  that  Vergennes  was 
informed  from  the  same  quarter  that  Franco  could  make  easy  terms  if 
she  would  desert  America.}: 

Corruption;  forgery.  §  OQ,  It  was  wcll  euougli  that  American  refugees 

iu  England  should  liave  stipends  allowed  them; 
but  when,  a  few  weeks  after  his  treachery,  a  letter  of  Arnold  appeared 
in  which  he  acknowledged  having  received  £5,000;  ||  when  it  became 
probable,  as  it  is  now  proved,  that  secretaries  in  American  legations 
vrere  under  British  pay  ;^  when  to  eminent  revolutionists  on  both  sides 
of  the  water  intimations  came  that  they  would  be  well  cared  for  if  tbey 
should  effect  a  compromise  by  which  British  sovereignty  at  least  would 
be  saved;**  when,  as  we  now  know,  enormous  sums  of  British  secret- 
service  money  were  spent  in  diplomatic  corruption ;  when  Paris,  to  use 

*  See  infra,  $^  29,  1G:5. 

t  Siqyra,  *J  7.  For  attempts  to  draw  France  into  separate  peace,  see  Vergennes  to 
Lnzerne,  March  23,  1782,  translated  in  part  in  8  Sparks'  Washington,  29i. 

t  Storraont,  in  his  dispatches  of  July,  1777,  dilates  on  hijj  efforts  to  make  Vergennes 
believe  that  Franklin  was  intriguing  with  England  against  the  French  ministry. 
(See  80  iSparks  Papers,  Harvard  College.) 

il  See  index,  title  Arnold. 

Among  the  "intercepted  letters"  in  the  Department  of  State  is  one  from  James 
Meyrick,  Parliament  street,  January  30,  1781,  to  ^'Mnjor-General"  Arnold,  announc- 
ing the  investment  on  the  latter's  behalf  of  £5,000,  which  was  a  part  of  the  money 
paid  to  Arnold  for  his  treason. 

The  following  extract  from  an  "intercepted  letter"  in  the  Department  of  State  from 
John  Hatton  to  his  son,  dated  January  I,  1781,  illustrates  the  status  of  some  of  the 
refugees : 

"  I  have  had  a  conference  with  some  of  our  great  men,  the  lords  of  the  treasury,  and 
as  some  compensation  they  have  given  me  £300  in  cash  and  £80  per  annum,  and 
likewise  my  custom-house  salary  during  my  absence  from  my  port.  Plad  I  been  for- 
tunate enough  to  have  come  three  or  four  years  before  I  might  have  had  four  hun- 
dred or  five  hundred  a  year,  as  Andrew  Allen,  who  was  attorney-general  at  Phila- 
delphia, as  one  of  the  most  violent  rebels,  and  raised  a  company  of  rebel  riflemen, 
is  now  hero  and  has  four  hundred  per  annum,  and  numbers  of  others  of  the  white- 
washed sort  have  from  eighty  to  five  hundred  a  year.  Thus  government  has  been 
much  imposed  npon  by  these  arch  jockeys  and  has  overdone  itself,  but  can  not  with 
propriety  retract ;  therefore  the  king's  real  friends  faro  the  Avorse,  and  some  have 
been  petitioning  for  two  or  more  years  to  no  purpose." 

1[  See  infra,  $  150. 

*  *  See  supra,  $  8. 

325 


§  30.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  III. 

the  words  both  of  Fraiikliu  and  Vergeunes,  was  so  thronged  by  secret 
British  emissaries  that  every  movement  of  an  American  envoy  was 
watched  and  every  accessible  influence  which  could  work  on  him 
seized* — then  it  is  impossible  for  us  not  to  acknowledge  the  unscrupulous 
skill  and  lavish  expenditure  by  which  this  particular  line  of  policy  was 
worked  out  by  the  British  Government.f 

In  this  connection  may  be  noticed  the  Issuing  by  British  authority  of 
fiilse  or  corrupted  papers  purporting  to  come  from  Americans  or  from 
Frenchmen  corresponding  with  Americans.f 

*  "  I  continue  to  watcli  Franklin's  motions  as  narrowly  as  I  can,  but  without  seeming 
to  pay  much  attention  to  tbeui.  I  have  frequent  offers  of  intelligence  with  regard 
to  him,  but  whenever  these  offers  come  from  a  snspicious  quarter,  which  is  often  the 
case,  my  general  answer  is  that  I  know  already  that  be  is  come  here  as  a  fugitive 
rebel,  which  is  all  I  want  to  know  with  regard  to  him."  (Stormont  to  Weymouth, 
Jan.  15,  1777,  Bancroft  MSS.) 

\  Supra,  ^$7,8. 

Of  Galloway,  whose  case  exhibited  the  most  important  political  conversion  made 
by  the  British  during  the  war.  Sir  WiUiam  Howe,  in  his  Observations,  says : 

"  I  allowed  him  at  the  rate  of  £200  sterling  per  annum  from  the  time  of  his  joining 
the  array  until  he  oould  be  otherwise  provided  for.  When  we  had  taken  possession 
of  Philadelphia  I  appointed  him  a  magistrate  of  the  police  of  the  city,  with  a  salary 
made  up  of  £300  sterling  per  annum  and  six  shillings  a  day  more  for  a  clerk.  I  also 
appointed  him  superintendent  of  the  port,  with  a  salary  of  twenty  shillings  a  day, 
making  in  the  whole  upwards  of  £777  sterling  per  annum.  Had  his  popularity  or  per- 
sonal influence  in  Pennsylvania  been  as  great  as  he  pretended  it  was,  I  should  not 
have  thought  the  money  ill- bestowed.  I  at  first  paid  attention  to  his  opinions  and 
relied  on  him  for  jprocuring  me  secret  intelligence,  but  I  aft'erwards  found  ray  confi- 
dence was  misplaced.  His  ideas  I  discovered  to  be  visionary,  and  his  intelligence 
was  too  frequently  either  ill-founded  or  so  much  exaggerated  that  it  would  have  been 
unsafe  to  act  upon  it.  Having  once  detected  him  in  sending  me  a  piece  of  intelli- 
gence from  a  person  who  afterwards,  upon  examination,  gave  a  different  account  of 
the  matter,  I  immediately  changed  the  channel  of  secret  communication,  and  in 
future  considered  Mr.  Galloway  as  a  nugatory  informer.  I  continued  him,  however, 
in  his  lucrative  ofiQces  as  magistrate  of  the  police  and  superintendent  of  the  port,  in 
the  duties  of  which  I  believe  he  was  not  deficient."  See  further  under  date  of  June 
10,  1780. 

t  See  index,  title  Forgery. 

The  extent  to  which  this  system  of  falsification  was  carried  is  noticed  in  a  note 
hereafter  given  to  a  letter  of  Marbois,  under  date  of  March  13,  1782. 

"  I  have  seen  a  letter  published  in  a  handbill  in  New  York,  and  extracts  of  ib 
republished  in  the  Philadelphia  paper,  said  to  be  from  rae  to  Mrs.  Washington,  not 
one  word  of  which  did  I  ever  write.  Those  contained  in  the  pamphlet  you  speak  of 
are,  I  presume,  equally  genuine,  and  perhaps  written  by  the  same  author."  (Wash- 
ington to  R.  H.  Lee,  2  R.  H.  Lee's  Life,  20.) 

In  a  letter  from  Washington  to  Pickering,  of  March  3,  1797(11  Sparks'  Washington, 
193),  he  designates  as  a  ''base  forgery"  certain  letters  to  Lund  Washington,  of  June 
12,  July  8,  July  15,  July  10,  July  22,  1776 ;  to  J.  P.  Custis,  of  June  18,  1776;  and  to 
Mrs.  Washington,  of  June  24,  1776.  The  "letter"  to  Mrs.  Washington  of  June  24, 
1776,  is  given  as  genuine  in  the  London  Chronicle  of  December  22-30,  1777,  and 
though  sorae  fragments  of  it  might  have  been  written  by  Washington,  yet  it  is  filled 
with  passages  of  sentiraentalism  both  of  love  and  loyalty  which  could  never  have 
come  from  his  pen. 

Sir  William  Howe,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  on  May  3,  1779  (20  Parliamentary 
History,  745),  expressly  avowed  that  the  famous  invitation  in  1777  to  him  from  lead- 
326 


CHAP.  III.]  BRITISH    ATTITUDE  [§31. 

The  forgery  within  the  British  lines  of  American  paper  money  is  more 
than  once  referred  to  in  the  following  pages.  A  kindred  falsification, 
that  of  passing  of  clipi)ed  coin  by  British  pnrchasers  of  provisions,  was  a 
common  device.  The  chief  in  this  line  of  falsification  was  General  Kob- 
ertson,  the  barrack-master  in  Xew  York  during  the  British  occupation. 
Jones,  the  tory  historian  of  New  York,  whose  high  personal  character 
entitles  him  to  full  credence,  gives  a  detailed  statement  of  Bobert son's 
clipping  the  coin  he  received  from  England  to  purchase  American  sup- 
plies, and  in  this  way  making  a  vast  fortune.  These  clipped  coins  were 
called  ^*  Robertsons,"  and  were  noticed  by  Ghastellux  as  in  wide  circu- 
lation. As  several  millions  of  pounds  were  sent  to  America  from  Eng- 
land for  disbursement,  and  were  thus  clipped  in  i^ew  York,  the  profits 
must  have  been  enormous* 

Distinctivo  policy  of  Rock-        ^31.  In  auothcr  volumct  it  is  shown  that  the 

inuhain  wliig.s;   teuding  to  '' 

acknowieago  indepeud-     i)olicy  of  Fox,  as  leading  in  foreign  affairs  the 

ence.  1.  ^  /  o  e^ 

Rockingham  whigs,  was  to  grant  independence 
absolutely  and  unconditionally  to  the  United  States.^  Had  this  been 
part  of  a  plan  by  which  the  United  States,  when  independent,  would 
have  been  endowed  with  a  territory  sufficiently  ample  to  enable  them 
to  take  a  leading  place  among  nations,  and  had  they  been  allowed  to 
continue  on  the  old  basis  their  trade  with  England  and  her  colonies, 
this  plan  wonhl  have  been  the  best  that  could  have  been  proposed.  But, 
as  is  shown  in  the  notes  referred  to,  not  only  did  Fox,  when  the  treaty 
giving  the  United  States  a  common  interest  in  the  fisheries  and  the 

ing  citizeus  of  Philadelphia,  which  produced  so  great  an  effect  in  England  and  in 
France,  was  forged  by  himself.  He  ''answered  the  fact  (with  which  he  had  been 
twitted  l>y  Germain)  resi)ecting  the  i)retended  invitation  from  the  inhabitants  of 
Philadelphia,  ivhich  he  said  had  hccn  fabricated  hy  himself  in  order  to  deceive  the  enemy. 
He  forged  the  invitation  and  sent  a  person  with  it,  that  the  contents  might  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  reheJs,  in  order  to  deceive  General  Washington  and  alarm  him  for  his  own 
safety  on  account  of  traitors  ivithin  and  a  powerful  enemy  from  without.^' 

"^  1  History  of  New  York,  162. 

t  Appendix  to  3d  vol.  Dig.  Int.  Law. 

t  During  the  war,  Richmond  and  Fox  did  not  conceal  the  satisfaction  with  which 
they  viewed  British  defeats  in  America  so  long  as  they  considered  it  a  contest  between 
English  and  English.  Even  after  France  intervened  Horace  Walpole,  who  in  this  re- 
spect was  an  ultra  whig,  thus  writes : 

"  France  has  a  right  to  humble  us.  The  true  English  who  are  in  America  have  behaved 
like  Englishmen,  without  any  Scot  alloy.  The  victories  of  Franco  will  be  over  Scots. 
Dr.  Franklin's  triumph  has  been  over  a  Scot  ambassador  (Stormout)."  (Horace  Wal- 
pole to  Mason,  March  10,  1778.) 

"I  rejoice  that  there  is  still  a  great  continent  of  Englishmen  who  still  remain  free 
and  independent,  and  who  laugh  at  the  impotent  majorities  of  a  i)rostitute  Parlia- 
ment."    (Walpole  to  Conway,  June  5,  1779.) 

''  I  appeal  to  the  unalterable  nature  of  justice  whether  this  war  with  America  is  a 
just  one.  If  it  is  not,  can  an  honest  man  wish  success  to  it?"  (Walpole  to  the 
Countess  of  Ossory,  October  26,  1781.) 

As  to  peace  agents  representing  this  class,  see  infra,  $  197  ff. 

327 


^  32. J  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  III. 

western  territory  as  far  as  the  Mississippi  came  up  before  Parliament, 
vehemently  attack  it  as  an  invasion  of  British  rights,  but,  though  the 
treaty  could  not  be  set  aside,  he  followed  up  this  attack  when  minister 
by  a  measure  the  effect  of  which  was  to  greatly  injure,  to  the  detriment 
of  both  nations,  the  trade  of  the  United  States  with  the  West  Indies.* 

Chatham  and  sheiburne        §32.  America,  it  was  declared  by  Chatham, 

sought  federal  and  commer-  j  ?  ^7 

ciai union.  could  uot  bc  couqucrcd.     Hence  all  hostile  troops 

should  be  withdrawn  from  her  shores,  and  she 
should  be  offered  absolute  local  self-government,  her  union  with  the 
mother  country  being  merely  federal,  and  this  union  only  obliging  her  to 
dependence  in  respect  to  foreign  relations.  And  if  the  independence  of 
America  was  to  be  acknowledged  by  Britain,  it  was  to  be  regarded  as  the 
result  of  a  partition  of  empire  involving  a  system  of  entire  commercial 
reciprocity.  This  view  was  accepted  by  Sheiburne,  the  most  philosophi- 
cal of  British  statesmen,  and  was  maintained  by  William  Pitt,  the  son, 
when  chancellor  of  the  exchequer  under  the  Sheiburne  administration. 
It  was  by  Sheiburne  also  that  a  community  of  interest  in  the  fisheries 
and  an  extension  of  territory  to  the  Mississippi  were  recognized  in  the 
articles  of  1782,  which  made  a  settlement  not  of  grant,  as  it  would  have 
been  under  the  policy  of  Pox,  but  of  partition,  each  party  retaining  her 
prior  rights.  For  it  was  maintained  by  Sheiburne,  following  herein  the 
vi^ws  of  Adam  Smith  and  of  Price,!  that  England  would  be  benefited 
by  such  a  x^artition  of  sovereignty  accompanied  by  reciprocity  of  trade, 
and  that  the  more  mighty  the  United  States  should  then  become,  the 
better  it  would  be  for  her.  Better  by  far  for  England,  so  they  argued, 
that  North  America  should  become  a  powerful  sovereignty,  controlled 
by  men  of  English  blood,  embracing  the  whole  Mississippi  Valley,  than 
that  that  fertile  valley  should  be  subjected  to  the  paralyzing  power  of 
Spain,  and  that  the  Englishrspeaking  people  of  America  should  in  this 
way  be  so  weakened  as  to  be  permanently  dei)endent  upon  an  alliance 
with  France.  It  was  on  these  principles  that  the  peace  of  1782-'83 
was  negotiated.  The  consideration  of  this  great  settlement,  however, 
must  be  reserved  to  another  volume.  | 

**  Appendix  to  3d  vol.  Dig.  Int.  Law. 

t  See  3  Lecky's  History  of  England,  390. 

t  See  iwfra,  under  date  of  1782,  1783;  see  also  appendix  to  second  edition  Digest 
of  International  Law.  As  to  peace  negotiations,  see  Mr.  Trescot's  excellent  Diplo- 
macy of  tlie  Revolution,  94  ff. 

328 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  TO  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Tomporary  hostility  to        ^33.  The  trcatv  of  1703,  bv  wliicli  Canada,  cer- 

Franco  engendered  by  the  '  ,j  i     ■u  1         ^ 

treaty  of  1763.  taiii  Freiicli  Wcst  ludia  islands,  and  the  domi- 

nancy  of  India  passed  from  France  to  England, 
was  at  first  as  mnch  censnred  in  England  and  America  as  it  was  in 
France.  The  treaty,  it  was  declared,  did  not  take  half  enongh.  France 
shonld  have  been  entirely  driven  from  the  fisheries.  She  shonld  not 
have  been  allowed  a  foothold  in  America.  But  while  in  France  the 
hatred  engendered  by  the  treaty  festered  in  secret,  in  England  the 
opposition,  venting  itself  through  the  parliamentary  safety-valve,  ceased 
to  exist  when  Parliament  assented  to  tlie  treaty.  But  that  assent  was 
bought  not  very  honorably,  however  wise  it  may  have  been.  Pitt, 
rather  than  acquiesce,  resigned.  Bute,  tlien  in  the  ascendant,  had  to 
fall  back  on  Henry  Fox,  whose  powers  as  a  leader,  coupled  with  the 
corrupt  influences  which  he  employed,  enabled  him,  desperate  as  was 
his  character,  to  carry  the  treaty  through.  But  the  popular  conviction 
in  England  that  it  was  an  unworthy  surrender,  while  it  was  at  the  same 
time  regarded  in  France  with  an  agony  of  humiliation,  shows  that  there 
then  existed  an  antagonism  between  the  two  countries  which  must,  even 
without  the  American  devolution,  have  sown  the  seeds  of  another  war. 

Hostility  in  France  porma-        ^  34,  The  dissatisfactiou  with  which  this  treaty 

nenfe.  ^ 

was  received  in  England  was  limited  and  evan- 
escent compared  with  that  with  which  it  was  received  in  France.  In 
England  only  the  military  pride  of  the  nation  was  wounded,  and  in  a 
short  time  it  was  felt  that  the  country  had  gained  as  much  as  it  could 
have  safel^^  claimed,  and  that  upon  the  whole  the  peace  was  better 
for  it  than  would  have  been  the  continuance  of  the  war.  In  France  it 
was  otherwise.  The  French  army  had  been  disgraced  by  ignomiuuous 
defeats  in  Germany;  the  French  navy  had  been  almost  annihilated; 
the  French  merchant  service  was  for  the  time  paralyzed,  and  the  French 
flag  ceased  to  wave  on  the  continent  of  America.  Canada  passed  over 
to  England ;  over  the  massive  fortifications  of  Louisburg,  on  which 
France  had  lavished  so  much  money  and  skill,  the  British  flag  now 
hung.  Even  on  her  own  territory  France  bore  the  scar  of  her  humilia- 
tion, she  being  obliged  to  agree  not  to  fortify  Dunkirk,  On  Spain  also, 
to  whom  she  was  bound  by  family  ties  as  well  as  by  alliance  during  the 

329 


§§  35,  36.J  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

war  the  treaty  closed,  the  still  greater  indignity  was  imposed  of  the  re- 
tention by  England  of  Gibraltar,  so  augmented  in  strength  as  to  make 
it  almost  impregnable. 

To  France  such  a  condition  was  unendurable,  and  peace  was  hardly 
settled  before  she  began  a  series  of  measures  which  would  enable  her 
to  assert  her  position  as  a  first-class  power.  She  at  once  reorganized 
her  navy,  and  so  energetic  was  her  action  in  this  relation  that  in  1765 
she  had  sixty-four  ships  of  the  line  and  thirty- four  frigates  for  cruising. 
And  she  succeeded — availing  herself  of  the  reaction  in  Europe  against 
England,  caused  by  the  latter's  arrogant  pretensions  to  naval  suprem- 
acy"— in  forming  intimate  political  relations  with  Austria  and  Holland, 
and  in  reestablishing  the  old  family  Bourbon  compact  with  Spain,  Par- 
ma, and  Kaples. 

Treaty  of  1763  helpful  to  the        §  35,  Humiliating  as  the  loss  of  the  North  Amer- 

United  states.  '  ^ 

lean  territories  was  to  France,  it  was  productive 
of  much  advantage  to  the  United  States  in  their  subsequent  struggle 
with  the  mother  country.  Had  France  in  1776  been  in  possession  not 
only  of  Canada  but  of  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  it  is  not  likely  that 
she  would  have  accepted  the  policy  of  freeing  the  United  States  from 
British  dominion ;  nor,  had  she  retained  Canada  and  the  Mississippi 
valley,  would  she  have  nourished  that  bitter  resentment  to  Britain  which 
swayed  her  after  the  peace  of  1763.  Burke  insisted  that  the  conquest 
of  Canada  was  of  doubtful  value  to  Britain,  as  by  removing  France  from 
North  America  it  would  weaken  the  community  of  danger  which  bound 
Britain  to  her  American  Colonies  and  would  precipitate  the  division 
of  the  British  empire.  Not  only  was  this  the  case,  but  had  France  held 
in  1782  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  that  great  country  would  not  have 
either  been  claimed  by  the  United  States  or  surrendered  by  France. 

Policy  of  Louis  xy  one  of  in-        s  36.  To  the  Quick  cvc  of  Choiscul,  who  was  at 

vestigation  and  intrigue.  •*  x  ,j  ? 

the  head  of  the  French  ministry  in  1763,  the 
source  of  danger  as  well  as  of  hope  was  to  be  found  in  the  English  Col- 
onies in  North  America.  Without  the  aid  drawn  from  them  Enghmd 
could  not  have  conquered  Canada  and  could  not  have  wrested  the  fish- 
eries from  France.  In  Uie  then  condition  of  the  world  these  English  Col- 
onies had,  under  England's  protection,  the  capacity  of  placing  on  the 
high  seas  a  naval  force  which  England  alone  could  surpass,  and  of  divid- 
ing with  England  the  carrying  trade  of  the  world.  Should  England  re- 
tain these  Colonies,  they  would  together  hold  an  absolute  empire  over 
the  seas.  If  the  Colonies  should  revolt,  and  if  independence  could  be 
achieved  by  them  by  war,  then,  by  alliance  with  them,  or  even  by  their 
standing  aloof  as  neutrals,  France  would  be  able  to  contest  England's 
maritime  supremacy.  To  watch  the  Colonies;  to  foment  as  far  as  possi- 
ble their  discontent;  to  aid  them  in  insurrection  against  England,  so  far 
as  this  could  be  done  without  prematurely  engaging  in  a  war  with  Eng- 
330 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  37. 

laud;  was  the  policy  of  the  miuistry  of  Louis  XV  from  the  time  of  the 
humiliatiou  of  17G3.* 

For  a  while,  however,  this  policy  was  satisfied  with  coUectiug  iufor- 
matiou  aud  giving  to  the  discouteuted  leaders  in  America  enigmatical 
hints  of  foreign  aid  that  might  in  certain  contingencies  be  received.  The 
ingenious  system  of  secret  service  which  Louis  XV  had  put  into  Euro- 
pean operation  had  what  might  be  called  its  "literary  bureau"  in  Amer- 
ica, whose  reports  he  personally  scanned.  According  to  De  Witt,  he 
took  a  "  malicious  pleasure"  in  listening  to  whatever  showed  the  growth 
of  American  disaffection. 

*'  He  was  very  well  served  by  tlio  representatives  of  France  in  London.  M.  Duraud, 
aud  after  bim  M.  de  Cbatelet,  or  in  tbe  absence  of  the  latter,  M.  Francais,  bis  first 
secretary,  were  incessantly  on  tbe  searcb  for  ideas  and  news.  Tbeir  correspondence 
abounds  in  particulars  relating  to  tbe  bistory,  position,  forces,  bopes,  and  desires  of 
the  Colonies;  particulars  derived  from  the  best  sources,  the  writinci^s  and  conversa- 
tions of  Franklin,  tbe  reports  of  M.  de  Pontleroy  (an  intelligent  naval  officer  whom 
M.  de  Choiseul  bad  commissioned  in  17G4  aud  1766  to  visit  the  Colonies  secretly  under 
tbe  name  of  Beaulieu),  from  communication  with  merchants  in  tbe  city,  indiscreet 
remarks  of  members  of  tbe  opposition,  American  newspapers;  and  there  are  still  to 
be  found  in  tbe  archives  of  tbe  office  of  foreign  affairs  pamphlets,  reports  of  assem- 
blies aud  meetings,  and  political  sermons,  wliicli  were  annexed  in  great  profusion  to 
their  dispatches.  They  did  not  confine  themselves  to  stating  what  they  bad  beard  ; 
they  also  said  what  they  thought,"     (De  Witt's  Jefi^rson,  52.) 

Policy  of  Louis  XVI  at  first        §  37.  The  ncws  of  Louis  XVPs  accession  to  the 

one  ot  reserve.  *' 

throne  was  received  in  Boston  on  the  day  when 
the  port  of  that  city  was  closed  by  British  orders;  and  it  was  natural 
that  the  leading  patriots  of  Massachusetts  should  speculate  with  anxiety 
on  the  new  monarch  of  France,  on  whom  so  much  in  the  future  was  to 
depend.     They  had  fought  against  Louis  XV  to  establish  British  su- 

''As  to  Choiseul's  position  Guizot  thus  writes: 

"  Tbe  Seven  Years'  War  was  ended,  shamefully  and  sadly  for  France ;  M.  de  Choiseul, 
who  bad  concluded  peace  with  regret  and  a  bitter  pang,  was  ardently  pursuing  every 
means  of  taking  his  revenge.  To  foment  disturbances  between  England  and  her  col- 
onies apjieaiped  to  bim  an  efficacious  and  a  natural  way  of  gratifying  bis  feelings. 
'  There  is  great  difficulty  in  governing  states  in  tbe  days  in  which  we  live,'  be  wrote 
to  M.  Duraud,  at  that  time  French  minister  in  London  ;  'still  greater  difrlculty  in 
gov^erning  those  of  America;  and  the  difficulty  approaches  impossibility  as  regards 
those  of  Asia.  I  am  very  much  astonished  that  Englau(l  which  is  but  a  very  small 
spot  in  Europe,  should  bold  dominion  over  more  than  a  third  of  America,  and  that 
her  dominion  should  have  no  other  object  but  that  of  trade.  *  *  *  As  long  as  the 
vast  A.merican  possessions  contribute  no  subsidies  for  the  support  of  the  mother  coun- 
try, private  persons  in  England  will  still  grow  rich  for  some  time  on  tbe  trade  with 
America;  but  the  state  will  bo  undone  for  want  of  means  to  keep  together  a  too  ex- 
tended power.  If,  on  the  contrary,  Eugland  proposes  to  establish  imposts  in  her  Amer- 
ican domains,  when  they  are  more  extensive  and  perhaps  more  populous  than  the 
mother  country,  when  tbey  have  fishing,  woods,  navigation,  corn,  iron,  they  will 
easily  part  asunder  from  her  without  any  fear  of  chastisement,  for  England  could  not 
undertake  a  war  against  them  to  chastise  them.'  He  encouraged  bis  agents  to  keep 
him  informed  as  to  tbe  state  of  feeling  iu  America,  welcoming  and  studying  all  proj- 
ects, even  the  most  fantastic,  that  might  be  hostile  to  England."  (5  Guizot's  History 
of  France,  355.) 

331 


§  37.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

premacy  in  Xortli  America;  were  they  to  look  upon  Louis  XVI  as  a 
possible  ally  or  as  a  foe  ? 

The  first  action  of  Louis  XVI,  wbo  had  arrived  at  his  majority  only 
a  short  time  before  his  accession,  gave  no  indication  as  to  his  course. 
He  selected  Maurepas  as  his  first  minister,  passing  ov-er  Cboiseul. 
Maurepas  reserved  no  particular  department  for  himself,  appointing 
Vergennes  to  the  foreign  office,  Sartine  to  the  navy,  Tiirgot  to  tbe 
treasury.  Vergennes  had  eminent  qualifications  for  the  post;  industri- 
ous almost  to  an  excess,  and,  as  we  will  hereafter  see  more  fully,*  of 
considerable  dii3lomatic  experience.  He  did  not,  indeed,  i)ossess  the 
buoyant  enterprise  nor  the  capacity  for  versatile  movement  and  subtle 
intrigue  which  distinguished  Ohoiseul,  but  he  had  the  more  valnablo 
characteristics  of  good  judgment,  of  clear  vision,  and  of  sagacious 
patience. 

To  Vergennes  France  was  the  first  object,  and  royalty  commanded 
his  obedience  only  because  he  believed  royalty  to  be  essential  to  the 
greatness  of  France.  He  favored  the  American  insurgents  merely  as 
engines  for  breaking  down  British  supremacy,  not  as  propagandists 
of  cosmopolitan  republicanism.  Even  less  friendly  to  them  was  Louis 
XVI ;  a  believer  in  the  divine  right  of  kings,  an  absolutist  by  educa- 
tion, and  an  admirer  of  George  III,  whose  respectability  of  character 
he  could  not  but  contrast  favorably,  in  the  eyes  of  a  virtuous  observer, 
with  the  dissoluteness  of  Louis  XV,  and  whose  determination  not  to 
yield  one  inch  to  rebels  naturally  commended  itself  to  an  absolutist 
king.  And  on  the  mere  question  of  policy  it  w^as  then  by  no  means 
sure  that  the  Colonies,  even  if  France  should  commit  herself  in  their 
ftivor,  might  not,  on  a  conflict  arising  between  England  and  France, 
desert  their  new  for  their  old  friend.  According  to  De  Kalb,  in  letters 
to  be  hereafter  more  fully  quoted,  written  during  his  secret  mission  to 
America  in  17G8,  the  Colonies,  no  matter  how  much  exasperated  against 
England,  would  fling  themselves  on  her  side  should  she  be  engaged  in 
a  war  with  France;  and  as  late  as  1770,  as  has  been  well  stated :t 

"A  quarrel  between  France  and  England  would  even  yet  have  sufficed  to  reconcile  the 
Colonies  to  tbe  motber  country,  to  silence  tbe  factions  which  were  then  disturbing  the 
tranquillity  of  London,  and  once  more  to  concentrate  the  whole  strength  of  the  British 
empire  against  the  common  enemy  before  tbe  latter  was  prepared  to  renew  tbe  strife. 
There  was  here  a  great  danger,  to  which  M.  do  Cboiseul  was  perfectly  alive,  but  of 
which,  in  his  disdain  for  tbe  ministry  of  which  Lord  Chatham  was  only  the  nominal 
head,  be  ventured  to  make  light.  '  I  hope,'  be  writes,  'there  is  not  in  them  tbe  energy 
nccoasary  to  enable  them  to  have  recourse  to  this  remedy  ; '  and  at  the  very  moment 
he  seemed  bent  upon  avoiding  every  chance  of  an  immediate  rupture  be  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  risk  their  bitterest  displeasure  by  seizing  upon  Corsica.  '  Tbe  public  is  occu- 
pied with  America,'  be  said  ;  '  tbe  government  is  feeble;  we  can  venture  upon  a  good 
deal.'  To  seize  upon  Corsica  was  indeed  to  attempt  a  good  deal ;  it  was  putting  the 
patience  of  a  powerful  enemy  to  tbe  severest  test  it  could  possibly  endure  ;  but  there 
is  pushing  forward  in  this  way  to  the  verge  of  what  can  be  attempted  with  impunity 
without  experiencing  some  secret  nneasiness." 

*  /w/ra,  $  50  jr.  t  De  Witt's  Jefferson  and  Democracy  (London,  1882),  49. 

332 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE    OF    FRANCE.  [§38. 

Heuce  it  was  that,  because  France  was  then  unprepared  lor  war,  be- 
cause the  revolt  in  the  Colonies  bad  not  yet  taken  linal  shape,  and 
because  the  first  instincts  ot*  Louis  XVI  were  against  interposition, 
the  advent  of  the  young-  king  contributed  to  continue  the  suspension  of 
French  interference  in  American  affairs  which  had  marked  Ohoiseul's 
withdrawal  in  1770.  Yet  this  suspension  of  French  activity  in  America 
was  not  necessarily  disadvantageous  to  the  cause  of  American  inde- 
pendence, and  there  is  strong  ground  to  accept  the  opinion  of  De  Witt 
that  it  was,  on  the  whole — 

"lucky for  America;  public  opiuiou  had  advanced  less  quickly  here  than  in  France, 
and  several  years  had  yet  to  pass  over  before  it  could  reach  the  same  point.  The 
correspondence  of  Franklin,  then  agent  for  Pennsylvania,  Georgia,  and  New  Jersey 
in  London,  furnishes  the  proof  of  it.  He  was  extremely  flattered  by  the  marked  atten- 
tion which  he  received  from  the  French  diplomatists.  In  all  probability  he  discerned 
in  his  relations  with  them  a  resource  for  the  future,  and  doubtless  took  care  not  to  for- 
feit it  by  any  excessive  reserve  that  would  discourage  their  curious  inquiries  into 
American  affairs;  but  their  zeal  for  the  cause  of  which  ho  was  the  representative 
nevertheless  excited  in  him  a  secret  distrust,  and  he  made  it  a  capital  point  not,  save 
in  the  last  extremity,  to  engage  in  any  serious  negotiations  with  the  enemies  of  his 
race."* 

Secret  investigations;  Bon-        §33,  lu  1 774,  howcvcr,  Yergeuues  bccamc  cou- 

vouloir.  ^  ^  10 

vinced  that  a  linal  rupture  between  England  and 
her  Colonies  was  at  hand.  England  had  not  long  before  connived  at,  if 
not  sustained,  the  support  given  by  British  subjects  (Boswell  among 
others)  to  Oorsican  insurgents,  and  Yergennes  availed  himself  of  this 
interference  to  familiarize  Louis  XYl  with  the  idea  of  French  interven- 
tion in  America.  A  new  secret  agent  was  sent,  with  the  king's  assent, 
to  America,  and  the  person  selected  for  this  purpose  was  Bonvoitloir,  a 
soldier  of  distinction,  who  had  previously  visited  the  principal  Ameri- 
can cities,  and  chiimed  to  have  become  there  acquainted  with  leading 
local  politicians.  Bonvouloir's  instructions  were  to  visit  the  chief  insur- 
gents, to  acquire  from  them  all  the  information  he  could,  and,  without 
in  any  way  committing  his  principals,  to  let  them  feel  they  might,  if 
war  ensued,  have  succer  from  France.-  To  avert  suspicion,  Bonvouloir 
was  to  sail  from  England  under  the  auspices  of  Count  do  Guines, 
French  minister  at  London,  and  on  the  7th  of  August,  1775,  Guines  was 
instructed  by  Yergennes  as  follows  : 

**One  of  the  most  essential  objects  is  to  reassure  the  Americans  on  the  score  of  the 
dread  which  they  are  no  doubt  taught  to  feel  of  us.  Canada  is  the  point  of  jealousy 
for  them ;  they  must  be  made  to  understand  that  we  have  no  thought  at  all  about  it, 
and  that,  so  far  from  grudging  them  the  liberty  and  independence  they  are  laboring 
to  secure,  we  admire,  on  the  contrary,  the  grandeur  and  nobleness  of  their  efforts;  and 
that,  having  no  interest  in  injuring  them,  wo  should  see  with  pleasure  such  a  happy 

*  De  Witt's  Jefferson  and  Democracy,  57,  ut  supra. 

The  relations  of  France  to  the  United  States  prior  to  and  at  the  time  of  the  recog- 
nition of  American  independence  by  France  are  discussed  by  a  pamphlet  on  "The 
Revolution  of  America,"  by  the  Abbe  Raynal,  published,  as  translated,  ia  Philadel- 
phia in  1782. 

333 


§  38.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

conjunction  of  circumstaucea  as  would  set  them  at  liberty  to  frequent  our  ports.  The 
facilities  they  would  find  for  their  commerce  would  soon  prove  to  them  all  the  esteem 
we  feel  for  them."  (5  Guizot's  History  of  Frauce,  371 ;  Frout  de  Fontpertuis,  Les 
fitatsUnis,  297.) 

Bonvouloir  arrived  in  Philadelphia  on  December  28,  1775,  and  at 
once  reported  himself  to  a  former  acquaintance — Francis  Daymon,  libra- 
rian of  the  Philadelphia  library,  not  long  before  instituted  by  Frank- 
lin. By  Daymon  Bonvouloir  was  at  once  introduced  as  a  Frenchman 
of  distinction  to  Franklin,  Harrison,  Johnson,  Dickinson,  and  Jay, 
members  of  the  secret  committee,  which  had  been  not  long  before  insti- 
tuted by  Congress.*  According  to  Bonvouloir's  report,  which  was  not 
received  by  Guiues  until  February  26,  1776 — 

'•'Ho  made  them  uooifer  whatever,  promising  them  o/?  7^  to  render  them  every  service 
which  could  depend  on  him,  without  making  himself  in  any  way  responsible  for  events, 
and  all  by  means  of  his  acquaintances,  and  without  putting  himself  at  all  in  their 
power.     Being  asked  on  what  terms  France  would  aid  them,  he  replied  that,  in  his 
idea,  France  wislicd  ihcm  well.     But  would  she  aid  them?     Possibly  she  might.     On 
what  footing?    He  could  not  al  all  tell;  butj  if  it  should  happen,  it  would  always  be 
upon  just  and  equitable  conditions;  that  moreover,  should  they  thinli  fitting  to  do  so, 
they  had  only  to  make  their  proi)Osals ;  that  he  had  valuable  acquaintances,  and 
would  undertake  to  have  their  AamvkwiX'A  presented,  and  nothing  farther.     Discouraging 
the  idea  of  their  sending  one  of  their  delegates  as  their  representative  to  France,  he 
informed  them  he  thought  it  might  be  attended  with  some  risk ;  but  that  if  they  would 
intrust  him,  with  anything,  jjossibly  he  might  get  replies  which  would  decide  them 
as  to  the  course  they  should  pursue;  but  that  in  fact  he  could  not  undertake  to 
advise  them  in  any  way;   he  was  merely  a  private  individual  traveling  for  curiosity ; 
that  he  should  be  really  glad  if,  by  means  of  his  acquaintances,  he  could  be  in  any  way 
useful  to  them;  that  he  would  not  expose  them,  himself,  or  any  one  to  any  risk;  that 
aifairs  of  this  importance  are  too  delicate  to  be  lightly  treated,  especiaWy  as  he  had 
no  right,  no  power;  and  that  he  could  only  guaranty  one  thing,  and  that  was,  he 
would  never  betray  their  confidence.     He  says  the  members  of  the  committee  were  only 
five  in  number;  that  they  met  at  an  appointed  spot  (place)  after  dark,  each  of  them 
going  to  it  by  a  diiferent  road  ;  that  they  had  given  him  their  confidence  after  his  first 
telling  them  that  he  (.ould  j^rowise,  offer,  and  answer  for  nothing,  after  having  warned 
them  several  times  that  he  could  merely  act  as  a  well-disposed  individual.    He  incloses  a 
letter  from  the  secret  committee,  requestwg  to  know  from  him,  as  a  private  individual, 
first,  whether  he  could  give  them  any  information  of  the  feeling  of  the  French  court 
towards  the  Colonies,  and,  if  favorable,  how  they  could  receive  a  positive  assurance  of 
it;  secondly,  whether  it  would  be  possible  to  get  from  France  two  skillful  engineer 
ofificers  who  were  to  be  depended  on,  and  what  steps  should  be  taken  to  procure  them; 
thirdly,  would  it  be  possible  to  obtain  directly  from  France  arms  and  other  warlike 
stores  in  exchange  for  the  products  of  the  country  ?     To  those  three  questions  M.  de 
Bonvouloir  replied.  First,  that  he  thought  he  might  venture  to  say  that  France  was 
well-disposed  towards  them,  and,  as  far  as  he  knew,  had  no  other  than  good  feelings 
towards  them  ;  but  as  to  obtaining  positive  assurance  of  it,  there  was  only  one  way, 
that  of  asking  directly  for  it — a  ticklish  step,  requiring  careful  management;    he 
would  neither  advise  for  or  against  it,  nor  take  it  upon  himself;  it  was  much  too  deli- 
cate a  matter.     Secondly,  two  engineer  officers  or  more  could  be  obtained  ;  the  only 
thing  required  would  be  to  ask  for  them  ;  that  he  had  already  done  so  on  their  behalf, 
without  being  positively  sure  of  success,  though  expecting  it,  as  ho  had  serviceable 
correspondents.     Thirdly,  as  to  procuring  arms  and  military  stores  in  exchange  for 
produce,  that  was  a  mere  mercantile    operation,   and  he  saw  no  great  objection 

*  See  notes  to  A.  Lee's  letter  of  Feb.  13,  1776. 

334 


CUAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§§  39,  40. 

to  it  on  the  part  of  Frauce ;  ho  would  even  refer  them  to  good  correspondents,  with- 
out himself  becoiuinj^  responsible  for  anythiug;  of  course  they  must  undertake  it  at 
their  own  risk  and  peril ;  at  uU  events,  they  would  do  well  not  to  make  too  much  use 
of  the  same  port,  which  might  attract  attention ;  ho  did  not  know  whether  they 
would  have  free  entrance  and  exit  from  the  French  ports  ;  this  would  be  an  open  dec- 
laration in  their  favor  and  possibly  involve  war ;  perhaps  Frauce  would  shut  her  eyes, 
and  that  was  all  they  wanted ;  still  he  could  not  answer  for  anythiug ;  he  was  nobody ; 
he  had  serviceable  acquaintances;  that  was  all."  * 

vergenncs-  "Reflexions."        §  39.  The  history  aiicl  character  of  Vergeunes,  as 

bearing  on  the  participation  of  France  in  the 
American  devolution  are  hereafter  distinctively  considered. f  The 
question  how  far  that  participation  should  extend  became  the  subject 
of  his  anxious  consideration  from  the  time  he  took  the  seals  of  the 
foreign  office;  and  the  views  he  entertained  in  1775  are  expressed  in  a 
paper  entitled  "Keflexions,"  in  which  he  called  the  attention  of  the 
king  to  the  various  conditions  bearing  on  this  momentous  issue. 

Raynevars  report.  §  40.  Early  in  Marchj  1776,  the  results  of  Bonvou- 

loir's  mission  being  before  the  department  of  state, 
Kayneval,  chief  clerk  in  that  department,  drew  up  a  report  on  the 
subject  for  the  information  of  Vergennes.t  In  this  paper  liayneval, 
after  describing  England  as  the  natural  enemy  of  France,  and  as  a 
greedy,  ambitious,  unjust,  and  faithless  enemy,  the  invariable  and  cher- 
ished object  of  whose  policy  was,  if  not  the  destruction,  at  all  events 
tbe  impoverishment,  humiliation,  and  ruin  of  France,  urged,  as  a 
natural  conssquence,  that  it  was  the  business  of  France  to  take  every 
possible  opportunity  of  weakening  the  strength  and  power  of  England. 
Taking  these  two  truths  as  his  point  of  departure,  he  proceeded  to  say 
that  the  question  was,  how  the  troubles  in  America  could  be  made  con- 
ducive to  this  desirable  end.  He  was  of  opinion,  he  said,  that  to 
favor  the  Colonies  would  be,  first,  to  diminish  the  power  of  Eng- 
land and  to  raise  that  of  France;  in  the  second  place,  to  cause  a  great 
diminution  in  English  commerce  and  a  great  increase  in  French 
commerce;  thirdly,  to  bring  about  eventually  the  recovery  of  the 
possessions  which  England  had  wrested  from  France,  such  as  the 
coast  fishery,  that  of  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  not  to  speak  of  Can- 
ada. To  the  objection  that,  once  a  free  and  independent  state,  the 
Americans  would  become  dangerous  to  the  French  colonies  and  to 
the  rich  possessions  of  Spain  in  South  America,  he  answered  that  in 
the  first  place  they  would  be  too  much  exhausted  for  a  considerable 

*  De  Witt,  ut  supra,  1775 ;  Front  de  Fontpertuis,  ut  supra,  301. 

Italics  are  given  as  in  De  Wilt.  The  letter  is  also  given  by  Doniol  (i,  268),  who 
describes  in  detail  the  artifices  by  which  this  mission  was  covered  up. 

t  As  to  Vergeunes  personally,  see  irtfra,  $$  41,  50  ;  infra,  $  50^. ;  as  to  his  position 
in  1776,  see  infra,  $  41. 

t  I  have  here  followed  in  the  main  the  translation  of  De  Witt,  ut  supra,  389. 

Rayneval's  full  name  was  Conrad  Alexandre  Gerard  de  Rayneval.  He  came  after- 
wards as  minister  to  America,  and  appears  in  our  correspondence  under  the  name  of 
Gerard.     See  infra,  $  83,  335 


§  40.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

time  to  think  of  attacking  their  neighbors ;  and  that  in  the  next  place 
they  would  be  most  likely  to  form  themselves  into  a  republic,  which,  as  is 
well  known,  is  not  given  to  conquest,  and  that  they  would  be  too  busily 
engaged  in  reaping  the  fruits  of  peace  to  be  troublesome  to  their 
neighbors.  He  then  said  that,  supposing  the  Colonies  did  encroach  on 
the  possessions  of  Spain,  it  did  not  necessarily  follow  that  this  must 
be  injurious  to  France;  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  family  compact 
not  to  be  infringed,  of  course.  As  to  the  question  how  France  could 
assist  them  ;  at  what  epoch  she  ought  to  assist  them,  and  what  would 
be  the  consequences  of  her  assisting  them,  he  answered  that  the  proper 
way  was  the  exchange  of  arms  and  stores  against  their  produce,  which, 
by  means  of  confidential  agents,  could  be  conducted  without  the  govern- 
ment appearing  in  it  or  attracting  the  displeasure  of  the  court  of  St. 
James,  and  exclusively  at  the  risk  and  cost  of  the  Americans  them- 
selves. Assistance  in  money,  he  thought,  could  be  given  indirectly,  or 
directly  if  necessary.  As  respected  naval  assistance,  this  would  be  a 
matter  of  more  difficulty.  It  could  not  be  done  openly  without  danger 
of  a  war  with  Great  Britain ;  and  not  clandestinely,  as  that,  if  found 
out,  would  justly  expose  the  French  to  the  charge  by  England  of 
secretly  fomenting  the  rebellion  in  her  Colonies.  But,  he  insisted,  there 
would  be  a  way  of  getting  rid  of  the  difficulty,  and  that  was  by  sending 
ships  of  war  disguised  as  merchant  vessels  to  St.  Domingo  or  some 
other  convenient  place,  where  the  Americans  could  go  and  get  them  at 
their  own  risk,  after  exchanging  papers  with  the  French  officer  in  com- 
mand, to  give  the  affair  the  character  of  a  purchase.  In  this  manner, 
he  maintained,  the  insurgents  might  strengthen  their  navy  by  the  aid 
of  France  witliout  herself  appearing  in  it  at  all.  As  to  the  time  at 
which  the  assistance  should  be  given,  he  said  that  at  the  present  mo- 
ment they  had  all  they  wanted,  but  this  might  not,  it  was  to  be  feared, 
continue  long,  and  France  should  therefore  at  once  attend  to  this 
point;  she  should  inspire  them  with  courage  and  perseverance  by 
promising  to  aid  them  as  soon  as  circumstances  would  allow,  and  should 
give  them  to  understand  that  the  precise  time  would  depend  upon  their 
successes,  but  that  they  might  expect  that  at  the  end  of  the  next  cam- 
paign such  an  opportunity  would  occur.  France  in  this  way  w^ould 
avoid  committing  herself,  whether  in  respect  to  the  insurgents  or  to  the 
court  of  St.  James,  and  would  be  in  a  position  to  strike  a  decisive 
blow  whenever  she  thought  circumstances  ripe  for  it.  As  to  the  con- 
sequences of  assisting  the  Colonies,  he  thought  the  results  in  any  case 
would  be  the  same.  If  England  were  not  successful  at  the  outset,  this 
would  be  a  proof  of  weakness;  France  might  therefore,  without  risk, 
assist  the  Colonies.  Should  England  be  successful  in  her  attempt  to 
keep  the  provinces  in  subjection,  she  would  probably  attack  our  colo- 
nies out  of  revenge  for  the  secret  aid  to  the  Americans,  which  she  would 
certainly  give  France  credit  for.  In  the  event  of  her  being  defeated, 
she  would  endeavor  to  seize  upon  the  French  West  India  islands  by 

336 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  41. 

way  of  iiideinnity  for  her  losses.  Consequently,  war  under  any  con- 
tingency would  be  inevitable  J  therefore  it  was  the  interest  of  France  to 
prepare  immediately  for  war,  and  the  best  way  of  doing  that  woukl  be 
to  obtain  the  sympathy  of  the  Colonies,  and,  if  necessary,  to  make  com- 
mon cause  with  them. 

vergenne8'  "Considerations."        §  41.  Qu  Marcli  17, 1776,  Vcrgeunes  *  presented 

to  his  associates  in  the  cabinet— Maurepas,  Tur- 
got  (controller-general),  Sartine  (secretary  of  the  navy),  and  St.  Ger- 
main (secretary  of  war)— a  paper  entitled  "Considerations,"  which, 
after  for  many  years  evading  the  search  of  historians,  and  whicli  Sparks 
and  Circourt  supposed  to  be  unobtainable,  was  brought  to  light  by  Do 
Witt  and  republished  by  Doniol.  In  this  important  paper  Vergennes,t 
after  some  general  reflections  on  the  advantages  which  the  two  crowns 
of  France  and  Spain  derived  from  the  continuance  of  the  civil  war  in 
America,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  on  the  inconveniences  which  might 
arise  frotn  the  independence  of  the  Colonies,  and  the  probability  that, 
in  case  of  failure  in  iSorth  America,  England  would,  to  recover  its 
credit,  turn  its  arms  against  the  French  and  Spanish  possessions  in 
America,  proceeds  to  consider  the  course  at  once  to  be  pursued. 
He  bitterly  attacks  the  English  for  their  habitual  breach  of  good 
faith,  violation  of  treaties,  and  disregard  of  that  observance  of  the 
sacred  laws  of  morality  which  distinguish  the  French,  and  infers  that 
they  will  take  the  first  opportunity  to  declare  war  against  France  or 
invade  Mexico.f  No  doubt,  if  the  kings  of  France  and  Spain  had  mar- 
tial tendencies ;  if  they  obeyed  the  dictates  of  their  own  interests,  and 
perhaps  the  justice  of  their  cause,  which  was  that  of  humanity,  so  often 
outraged  by  England  j  if  their  military  resources  were  in  a  sufiiciently 
good  condition,  they  would  feel  that  Providence  had  evidently  chosen 
that  very  hour  for  humiliating  England  and  revenging  on  her  the  wrongs 
she  had  inflicted  on  those  who  had  the  misfortune  to  be  her  neighbors 
and  rivals,  by  rendering  the  resistance  of  the  Americans  as  desperate  as 
possible.  The  exhaustion  produced  by  this  internecine  war  would  pros- 
trate both  England  and  her  Colonies,  and  would  afford  an  opportunity 
to  reduce  England  to  the  condition  of  a  second-rate  power ;  to  tear 
from  her  the  empire  she  aimed  at  establishing  in  the  four  quarters  of 
the  world  with  so  much  pride  and  injustice,  and  relieve  the  universe  of 
a  tyranny  which  desires  to  swallow  up  both  all  the  power  and  all  the 
wealth  of  the  world.  But  the  two  crowns  not  being  able  to  act  in  this 
wa}^,  they  must  have  recourse  to  a  circumspect  policy.  This  granted, 
Yergennes  lays  down  four  propositions :   First,  care  must  be  taken 

*  See  as  to  Vergennes  further,  infra,  $  50^'. 
1 1  adopt  here  in  the  niaiu  De  Witt's  rendering,  ut  supra,  391. 

t  As  to  the  Avhig  opposition,  Chatham  attheii-  head,  he  thinks  that  their  policy  was 
by  making  peace  with  America,  to  turn  the  full  power  of  Britain  against  France. 

22  WH  337 


^41.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV 

not  to  commit  themselves,  and  so  bring  on  the  evils  they  desire  to  pre- 
vent. Secondly,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  inaction,  however  com- 
l^lete,  could  save  France  from  being  an  object  of  suspicion ;  that  the 
actual  policy  of  France  did  not  escape  suspicion  even  then ;  that  the 
English,  accustomed  to  think  of  their  own  interests  and  to  judge  others 
by  themselves,  would  necessarily  think  it  unlikely  that  the  French  Gov- 
ernment would  let  slip  so  good  an  opportunity  of  injuring  themj  and 
even  if  they  did  not  think  so,  they  would  feign  it  if  they  wanted  to  attack 
France,  and  Europe  would  believe  it  in  spite  of  her  denial.  Thirdly, 
that  the  continuation  of  the  war  would,  for  obvious  reasons,  be  advanta- 
geous to  the  two  crowns.  Fourthly,  that  the  best  mode  of  securing  this 
result  would  be  on  the  one  hand  to  keep  up  the  persuasion  in  the  minds 
of  the  English  ministry  that  the  intentions  of  France  and  Spain  were 
pacific,  so  that  they  might  not  hesitate  undertaking  an  active  and  costly 
campaign;  and  on  the  other  hand  to  sustain  the  courage  of  the  Amer- 
icans, by  countenancing  them  secretly^  and  by  giving  them  vagne  hopes 
which  would  obstruct  any  attempts  England  might  make  to  brfng  about 
an  amicable  accommodation,  and  would  contribute  fully  to  develop  that 
desire  for  independence  which  was  now  beginning  to  be  observed  among 
them.  The  colonists  would  be  rendered  furious  by  the  injuries  inflicted 
upon  them,  the  contest  would  grow  fiercer,  and  even  should  the  mother 
country  prove  successful,  she  would  for  a  long  while  have  need  of  all 
her  disposable  force  to  keep  down  the  spirit  of  independence,  and  would 
not  dare  to  risk  the  attempts  of  her  colonies  to  combine  with  a  foreign 
enemy  for  the  recovery  of  their  liberty.  Thence  he  draws  the  following 
inferences : 

(1)  That  they  should  continue  dexterously  to  keep  the  English  min- 
istry in  a  state  of  false  security  with  respect  to  the  intentions  of  France 
and  Spain. 

(2)  That  it  would  be  politic  to  give  the  insurgents  secret  assistance 
in  military  stores  and  money;  that  the  admitted  utility  would  justify  this 
little  sacrifice,  and  no  loss  of  dignity  or  breach  of  equity  would  be  in- 
volved in  it. 

(3)  That  it  would  not  be  consistent  with  the  king's  dignity  or  interest 
to  make  an  open  contract  with  the  insurgents  until  their  independence 
was  achieved. 

(4)  That  in  case  France  and  Spain  should  furnish  assistance,  they 
should  look  for  no  other  return  than  the  success  of  the  political  object 
they  had  at  that  moment  in  view,  leaving  themselves  at  liberty  to  be 
guided  by  circumstances  as  to  any  future  arrangements. 

(5)  That  perhaps  a  too-marked  inactivity  at  the  present  crisis  might 
be  attributed  by  the  English  to  fear,  and  might  expose  France  to  insults 
to  which  it  might  not  be  disposed  to  submit.  The  English,  he  adds, 
respect  only  those  who  can  make  themselves  feared. 

(6)  That  the  result  to  which  all  these  considerations  led  was  that  the 
two  crowns  should  actively  prepare  means  to  resistor  punish  England, 

338 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  42. 

more  especially  as,  of  all  possible  issues,  the  maiutenauce  of  peace  with 
that  power  was  the  least  probable.* 

St.  Germain.  Turgot.  §  42.  The  members  of  the  cabinet  addressed 

answered  as  follows : 

St.  Germain,  on  March  15,  replied  with  the  maxim,  ''  Si  vis  pacem,  para 
bellum,''  sustaining  in  the  main  the  conclusions  of  Yergennes. 

Turgot  waited  until  April  6,  when,  after  some  general  doubts  as  to 

whether  the  independence  of  the  Colonies  would  benefit  France,  he 

proceeded  to  say : 

•'Since  the  commencement  of  the  rcigu  of  Louis  XVI  the  payments  of  the  govern, 
ment  annually  exceed  its  receipts  by  twenty  millions.  There  are  but  three  ways  of 
meeting  the  deficit :  By  augmentation  of  taxes,  by  bankruptcy  more  or  less  disguised, 
or  by  marked  economy.  Neither  of  the  first  two  of  these  alternatives  can  be  justly 
adopted.  The  third  remains,  but  it  requires  time.  This  does  not  compel  us,  he 
argued,  absolutely  to  refuse  war,  but  we  should  not  enter  into  it  prematurely.  And 
to  attack  England  would  probably  be  the  signal  of  a  reconciliation  between  her  and 
her  Colonies,  precipitating  the  danger  we  wish  to  avoid."    (See  1  Doniol,  261,  282.) 

Turgot's  position  is  thus  summarized  by  Henri  Martin,  in  his  History 
of  the  Decline  of  the  French  Monarchy  :t 

''  Putting  aside  his  sympatbies  and  reasoning  on  the  basis  of  pure  interest,  he  said 
that  it  was  to  the  interest  of  France  for  England  to  succeed  in  subjugating  her 
Colonies,  because  if  they  were  ruined  England  would  be  weakened  thereby  ;  and  if 
they  remained  strong  they  would  always  preserve  the  desire  of  independence,  and 
would  continue  to  be  an  embarrassment  to  the  mother  country,  The  eagle  glance 
of  Turgot  speedily  re-appeared  in  the  sequel  of  the  memorial.  Whatever  might  be 
the  immediate  issue  of  the  insurrection,  he  predicted  the  definitive  issue  would  be 
the  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  Colonies  by  England  herself,  a  complete 
revolution  in  the  political  and  commercial  relations  between  Europe  and  America, 
and  the  final  emancipation  of  all  the  European  colonies.  '  I  firmly  believe  that  every 
other  mother  country  will  be  forced  to  abandon  all  empire  over  her  colonies,  j)ermit  an 
entire  freedom  of  commerce  with  all  nations,  and  content  herself  with  sharing  this 
freedom  with  others,  and  with  preserving  the  ties  of  friendship  and  fraternity  with 
her  colonies.  It  is  important  that  Spain  should  familiarize  herself  with  this  idea.' 
Turgot  thought,  with  Vergennes,  that  offensive  warfare  should  be  avoided.  In  this 
respect  he  invoked  moral  reasons  as  well  as  the  state  of  the  finances  and  that 
of  the  army  and  navy.  Time  was  needed  to  regenerate  these  branches  of  the  king's 
power,  and  there  was  danger  of  rendering  our  weakness  eternal  by  making  a  prema- 
ture use  of  our  reviving  strength.  Lastly,  the  decisive  reason  was  that  an  ofiensivo 
warfare  would  reconcile  the  mother  country  and  the  Colonies,  by  inducing  the  first 
to  yield.  Turgot,  in  his  conclusions,  did  not,  however,  oppose  the  proposals  of  Beau- 
march  ais,  for  he  advised  the  govenmient  to  facilitate  measures  whereby  the  colonists 
could  procure  the  munitions,  and  even  the  money,  which  they  needed,  by  means  of 
commerce,  without  departing  from  official  neutrality  and  wkhout  direct  aid. 

"To  re-establish  our  maritime  forces  quietly ;  to  put  ourselves  in  a  condition  to  fit 
out  two  squadrons  at  Toulon  and  Brest;  to  arrange  everything  for  a  descent  upon 
England  should,  war  become  imminent,  in  order  to  oblige  the  enemy  to  concentrate 
his  forces,  and  to  take  advantage  of  this  concentration  to  send  expeditions  both  to 
the  West  Indies  *'  and  to  India,  where  wo  should  have  the  means  of  action  prepared  ;' 

*  See  as  to  position  of  France  at  this  period  Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution, 

19  .r. 

t  2  Booth's  Translation,  374. 

339 


§  43.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

nevertheless,  to  avoid  war  until  it  should  become  absolutely  inevitable,  because  it 
would  prevent  for  a  long  time,  and  perhaps  forever,  an  internal  reform,  which  was 
positively  necessary.  Such  were  the  last  counsels  of  the  reformatory  minister  on  the 
eve  of  his  fall."     (Martin,  ut  supra;  see  1  Doniol,  283.) 

French  motive  not  exciu-        ^  43.  It  would  be  Sb  mistake,  hovvever,  to  attrib- 

sively  revenge.  •'  ' 

ute  the  Freucli  support  of  America  exclusively 
to  a  feeling  of  revenge  for  the  humiliations  of  the  prior  war.  Other 
motives  came  in  and  exercised  a  decisive  influence.  There  was  a 
conviction,  and  a  right  one,  in  Franc<3  that  for  Britain  to  hold  under 
control  the  whole  of  North  America  as  well  as  of  India  would  give 
her  a  maritime  supremacy,  as  well  as  a  superiority  in  wealth,  which 
would  constitute  a  standing  menace  to  the  rest  of  the  civilized  world. 
There  was,  again,  an  enthusiasm  among  the  young  nobility*  and 
among  ofdcers  in  the  army  for  America,  which,  even  aside  from  the 
bitterness  towards  Britain  with  which  it  was  mingled,  had  great  effect 
on  people  as  well  as  on  court;  and  to  this  was  added  the  sym^Dathy  of 
doctrinaire  political  philosophers  who  then  and  for  some  time  afterwards 
had  great  power  in  forming  French  public  opinion.  By  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  young  nobility  the  queen — brilliant,  bold,  weary  of  the  traditions 
of  the  old  court,  inconsiderate  as  to  ultimate  political  results — was  af- 
fected, and  through  her  her  husband  was  reached.  But  above  this,  was 
the  sense  of  right  which- was  uppermost  in  the  breast  of  the  unfortunate 
sovereign  who  then,  with  little  i^olitical  experience  but  high  notions  of 
duty  as  well  as  of  prerogative,  occupied  the  throne.  "  The  king,"  said 
Franklin,  when  writing  to  Congress  on  August  9,  1780,  "  a  young  and 
virtuous  prince,  has,  I  am  persuaded,  a  pleasure  in  reflecting  on  the  gen- 
erous benevolence  of  the  action  in  assisting  an  oppressed  people,  and  pro- 
poses it  as  a  part  of  the  glory  of  his  reign. '^  "You  will  not  wonder,"  he 
said  on  October  2  in  the  same  year,  in  an  informal  letter  to  Jay,  "at  my 
loving  this  young  prince.  He  will  win  the  hearts  of  all  in  America." 
Franklin  was  himself  not  inclined  to  enthusiasm.     If  he  erred  in  his 

*  In  Dev^ember,  1782,  a  number  of  French  officers  being  in  Boston,  General  Viom6- 
nil  being  at  their  head,  they  were  waited  on  by  the  general  court,  and  addressed,  in 
its  behalf,  by  Samuel  Adams.  Among  the  distinguished  men  whom  the  visitors  met 
was  Dr.  Cooper,  whose  name  appears  as  the  correspondent  of  Franklin  in  the  follow- 
ing pages.     (See  index,  title  Cooper.) 

"  Dr.  Cooper,"  according  to  Dumas,  *'  one  da}^  spoke  to  us  of  the  first  Declaration  of 
Independence.  We  listened  to  him  with  the  most  eager  attention.  When  praising 
our  enthusiasm  in  the  cause  of  liberty,  he  said  to  us:  'Take  carej  take  care,  young 
men,  lest  the  triumph  of  the  cause  on  this  virgin  soil  should  too  much  influence  your 
hopes.  You  will  carry  away  with  you  the  germs  of  these  generous  sentiments;  but 
if  you  ever  attempt  to  propagate  them  on  your  native  soil,  after  so  many  ages  of  cor- 
ruption, you  will  have  to  surmount  far  different  obstacles.  It  has  cost  us  much  blood 
to  conquer  liberty,  but  you  will  have  to  shed  it  in  torrents  before  you  can  establish 
it  in  Europe.'  How  many  times  since  then,  during  our  political  storm,  during  our 
fatal  days,  have  I  called  to  mind  the  prophetic  warnings  of  Dr.  Cooper;  but  the  ines- 
timable prize  which  the  Americans  obtained  by  their  sacrifice  was  always  present  to 
my  mind."     (Stone's  Our  French  Allies,  528.) 

340 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  43. 

appeals  to  otliers  to  do  what  is  right,  it  was  in  laying  too  much  stress  on 
motives  of  interest.  He  had  too  much  tact  and  self-respect  to  indulge 
in  flattery.  Language  such  as  that  just  quoted  he  never  would  have 
addressed  either  to  the  king  or  to  one  of  his  ministers.  The  encomium, 
about  as  high  as  could  have  been  given,  was  given  argumentatively 
to  explain  why,  in  dealing  with  this  "young  prince,"  there  should  be 
kindliness  and  consideration ;  and  why  language  such  as  a  haughty 
superior  might  use  to  a  subordinate,  or  such  even  as  an  incensed  and 
downtrodden  subordinate  might  use  to  a  superior,  was  not  proper  for 
Americans  to  use  when  addressing  Louis  XVL  And  Franklin,  iu 
speaking  in  the  way  he  did  of  the  king,  did  not  speak  without  knowl- 
edge. Franklin  was  a  sagacious  observer,  and  his  intimacy  with  Ver- 
gennes,  with  La  Fayette,  and  with  the  leading  statesmen  among  whom 
ho  moved,  gave  him  peculiar  opportunities  of  observation.  Hence, 
while  recognizing  in  his  American  correspondence  these  noble  qualities 
iu  Louis  XVI,  he  recognized  them  also  in  making  his  appeal  personally 
to  that  ill-fated  i)rince. 

There  is  in  Franklin's  letters,  which  were  meant  for  the  royal  eye,  a 
paternal  tenderness  which  is  j^eculiarly  significant,  and  there  is  in 
them  also,  as  a  basis  to  the  whole,  an  appeal  to  those  very  qualities  of 
magnanimity  and  justice  whose  existence  he  had  recognized  in  his  cor- 
respondence with  Congress  and  with  Jay.  It  is  impossible,  when  view- 
ing the  delicacy  and  considerateuess  of  these  letters,  taken  iu  connec. 
tion  with  their  wonderful  political  wisdom  and  loyalty  to  country,  and 
when  comparing  these  qualities  with  the  hard  tone  in  which  one,  at  least, 
of  his  colleagues  addressed  the  French  court,  not  to  see  that  during 
his  mission  at  Paris  Franklin  exhibited  not  merely  great  wisdom  in  the 
maintenance  of  his  country's  cause,  but  a  fitting  tenderness  towards 
the  French  crown.  And  it  may  perhaps  be  said  that,  had  he  been  prime 
minister  of  France  during  the  ten  years  that  followed  the  close  of  his 
mission,  he  would  have  left  Louis  XVI  on  the  throne  as  the  head  of  a 
constitutional  monarchy  in  which  popular  rights  would  have  been  ade- 
quately secured. 

It  was,  however,  unfortunate  for  both  France  and  for  the  United 
States  that,  in  the  period  of  national  development  that  followed  the 
peace,  there  were  conditions  which  did  much  to  bring  out  in  the  minds 
of  French  statesmen  a  feeling  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  United  States, 
which  continued  at  least  through  the  remainder  of  the  reign  of  Louis 
XVL  Congress  was  for  a  while  slow  in  paying  its  interest.  Spain  was 
becoming  more  and  more  a  dependency  of  France,  and  yet  Spain's  do- 
minions in  America  were  in  constant  peril  from  the  encroachment  of 
the  population  of  the  United  States,  and  Congress  refused  to  rece^le 
from  its  determination  to  insist  on  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi. 

The  great  body  of  the  population  of  the  United  States,  it  is  true, 
retained  its  revolutionary  affection  for  France  and  its  revolutionary 
resentment  to  England.     Yet,  while  such  was  the  case,  French  states- 

341 


§  44]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

men  were  becoiniug  conscioUvS  that,  paradoxical  as  it  might  seem,  and 
bitter  as  was  their  disappointment,  the  profit  of  the  aggrandizement  of 
the  United  States  was  inuring  to  the  benefit  of  Britain  and  not  of  France. 
Even  as  early  as  1 786  the  French  ministry  was  advised  by  its  envoys 
at  Philadelphia  that  the  proportion  of  English  commerce  with  the 
United  States  to  French  was  eight  to  one.  It  was  probable  that  this 
balance  on  Britain's  side,  so  they  argued,  would  be  increased  as  time 
moved  on,  not  merely  because  the  staples  and  industries  of  Britain  and 
the  United  States  supplemented  each  other,  but  because  of  national 
kindred  elements  of  religion,  of  law,  of  language,  of  history,  of  habit, 
which  made  the  Eoglish  Bible  the  standard  of  American  faith,  English 
jurisprudence  authoritative  in  American  courts,  English  literature  the 
solace  of  American  families,  English  past  heroisms  the  pride  of  Amer- 
ican patriots,  English  business  ways  the  ways  of  American  business 
men.  Hence  the  tone  of  the  instructions  from  the  French  ministry, 
after  peace,  during  the  remainder  of  the  reign  of  Louis  XVI  became 
more  and  more  averse  to  any  further  aggrandizement  of  the  United 
States.* 

Effect  of  battle  of  Saratoga.        §  44.  xhc  Official  ucws  of  the  battle  of  Saratoga, 

one  of  the  "fifteen  decisive  battles  of  the  world," 
to  which  Sir  E.  S.  Creasy  has  devoted  a  treatise,  was  brought  to  France 
by  Jonathan  Loring  Austin,  secretary  to  the  Massachusetts  board  of 
war,  he  being  appointed  for  this  purpose  by  the  council  of  Massachu- 
setts.f  He  sailed  on  October  30,  1777,  and  arrived  at  Nantes  after  a 
voyage  of  thirty-one  days.  He  at  once  proceeded  to  Passy,  where  he 
was  met  by  Franklin,  Arthur  Lee,  William  Lee,  Izard,  Beaumarchais, 
and  Bancroft.  The  momentous  character  of  the  victory  he  announced 
was  not  made  less  interesting  b^^  the  elaborateness  of  the  dispatches 
in  which  it  and  the  preceding  events  were  detailed,  and  the  visitors, 
as  well  as  the  envoys,  were  at  once  set  to  work  to  prepare  for  transmis- 
sion to  the  French  and  other  courts  the  main  papers  received.  Ban- 
croft in  a  short  time  set  out  for  London,f  to  be  followed  soon  by  Austin, 
and  this  was  used  by  Arthur  Lee  and  Izard  as  a  fact  from  which  specu- 
lation in  the  funds  by  Franklin's  friends,  if  not  by  himself,  could  be 
inferred.  But,  as  will  be  hereafter  shown, ||  there  is  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  Burgoyne's  surrender  was  known  in  Loudon  before  it  was 

*  See  particularly  a  letter  from  the  Freucli  cabinet  to  Otto,  Aug.  30,  1787,  given  in 
2  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  438.  This  "  paradox"  of  combination  of  bitter 
political  antagonism  with  close  commercial  alliance  is  explained  by  Talleyrand,  with 
characteristic  sagacity  and  subtlety,  in  n  remarkable  letter  written  by  him,  at  Phila- 
delphia, on  Feb.  1,  1795,  to  Shelburne.  This  letter  appeared  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Revue  D'Histoire  Diplomatique  for  1389,  p.  64. 

t  As  to  the  military  aspects  of  this  battle,  see  note  to  letter  of  Harrison  et  al.  to 
Franklin  et  al.,  Oct.  18, 1777,  infra.     As  to  Austin,  see  infra,  ^  195. 

t  As  to  Bancroft's  alleged  double-dealing,  see  infra,  ^  196,  where  the  moot  question 
of  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  the  news  is  discussed. 

II  Infra,  $  196. 

342 


CHAP.  IV.]  TREATY    WITH    FRANCE.  [§  45. 

known  ill  Paris.  And,  in  view  of  Franklin's  relations  to  the  English 
opposition,  there  is  nothing*  strange  in  his  comnumicating  to  them 
whatever  inlbrniation  he  had  which  would  strengthen  them  in  their 
opposition  to  the  war.* 

Recosnition  of  and  treaties        K  45,   r^i^Q  treaties  of  alliance  and  commerce 

with  the  Uuited  States.  •^ 

between  France  and  the  United  States,  based  as 
they  were  on  an  acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  by  France,  have  been  elsewhere  discussed  in  their  relations  to 
international  law.f  It  is  sufiicient  here  to  observe  that  in  a  general 
sense  the  treaty  of  commerce  was  absolute  and  immediate  in  its  effects; 
the  treaty  of  alliance  was  eventual,  as  it  was  called,  or  contingent  on 
war  taking  x^lace  between  France  and  Britain.|  Both  bore  the  same 
date,  of  February  G,  1778.§ 

*  After  Burgoyne's  surrender  "it  became  more  and  more  difficult  for  the  French 
Government  to  maintain  the  equivocal  position  which  it  had  assumed.  The  English 
were  incessantly  renewing  their  bitter  complaints  concerning  the  pressure  of  the 
agents  of  the  rebels  in  France,  the  welcome  given  to  the  American  privateers  in 
French  ports,  and  the  shipments  and  expeditions  dispatched  from  France  in  behalf 
ofthcre&e/s.  The  cabinet  of  Versailles  disavowed  the  shipments,  and  caused  them 
sometimes  to  be  suspended  ;  expelled  the  privateers,  which,  sent  away  from  one  port, 
entered  another;  declared  that  it  tolerated  the  agents  of  Congress  only  as  simi)lo 
private  individuals ;  and  recriminated  against  the  violations  of  the  flag  and  the  vex- 
atious search  of  French  vessels  which  the  English  ventured  upon  on  the  very  coasts 
of  France.  July  4,  1777,  the  minister  of  the  marine  signified  to  the  chambers  of 
commerce  that  he  should  protect  and  reclaim  the  vessels  seized  by  the  English  on  the 
pretext  of  commerce  with  America,  and  squadrons  were  fitted  out  at  Toulon  and  Brest. 
The  minister  of  foreign  affairs  meanwhile,  in  an  official  reply  to  the  cabinet  of  St. 
James,  July  15,  still  protested  the  fidelity  of  France  to  the  existing  treaties.  England 
answered  by  proposing  a  treaty  of  mutual  guaranty  for  the  security  of  the  possessions 
of  the  two  crowns  in  America.  This  impertinent  proposition  was  received  with  the 
disdain  which  it  deserved."     (2  Martin's  Decline  of  French  Monarchy,  381.) 

An  animated  account  from  the  "  Hessian  "  stand-point  of  Burgoyne's  campaign  will 
be  found  in  Briefe  aus  Neu-Engiand,  Schlozers  Briefwechsel,  1779,  349  ff.  See  also 
Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution,  39  jf. 

t  Dig.  Int.  Law, '2d  ed.,  148;  see,  as  to  these  treaties,  Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the 
Kevolution,  24jf.,  42J. 

t  1  Marshall's  Washington,  236. 

$  Doniol  gives  a  lively  picture  of  the  position  of  the  French  and  English  courts  when 
the  question  of  an  alliance  between  Franco  and  the  United  States  approached 
its  decision.  France,  according  to  Doniol,  was  actuated  by  resentment  at  British 
arrogance,  by  mortification  at  the  humiliations  to  which  she  had  been  subjected  by 
the  prior  war,  and  by  a  belief  that  if  she  did  not  by  a  treaty  insure  the  continued 
efforts  of  the  Americans  for  independence,  they  would  effect  a  reconciliation  with 
Great  Britain,  leaving  France  to  bear  the  whole  brunt  of  British  animosity.  It  was 
not,  however,  until  Burgoyne's  surrender  that  the  French  ministry  summoned 
resolution  to  take  the  decided  step.  Doniol  asserts  that  the  American  envoys 
endeavored  to  i)recix)itate  action  by  exaggerating  the  probability  of  a  compromise 
betw^een  Great  Britain  and  the  Colonies.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Franklin  sought  in 
every  way  to  impress  on  Franco  the  view  that  if  adequate  French  aid  were  not  given 
the  Colonies  would  be  obliged  to  succumb.  There  is  no  doubt  also  that  Lord  Stor- 
mont,  in  his  communications  with  Vergennes,  greatly  exaggerated  the  strength  of 

343 


§  46.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

Question  as  to  rescinding        §46,  j^  tlie  Commercial  treaty,  as  originally 

"  molasses  article.  •"  t' 7  o  u 

agreed  to,  were  the  folio wiug  articles  : 

"Art.  XI.  It  is  agreed  and  concluded  that  the-re  shall  never  be  any  duty  imposed 
on  the  exportation  of  the  molasses  tbat  may  be  taken  by  the  subjects  of  any  of  the 
United  States  from  the  islands  of  America  which  belong  or  ma,y  hereafter  appertain 
to  his  most  Christian  majesty. 

'•'  Art.  XII,  In  compensation  of  the  exemption  stipulated  by  the  preceding  article, 
it  is  agreed  and  concluded  that  there  shall  never  be  any  duties  imposed  on  the  ex- 
portation of  any  kind  of  merchandise  which  the  subjects  of  his  most  Christian  majesty 
may  take  from  the  countries  and  possessions,  present  or  future,  of  any  of  the  thirteen 
United  States  for  the  use  of  the  islands  which  shall  furnish  molasses." 

These  articles  were  resciDtled  as  follows: 

"  The  General  Congress  of  the  United  States  of  North  America,  having  represented 
to  the  king  that  the  execution  of  the  eleventh  article  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  com- 
merce, signed  the  sixth  of  February  last,  might  be  productive  of  inconveniences;  and 
having,  therefore,  desired  the  suppression  of  this  article,  consenting  in  return  that 
the  twelfth  article  shall  likewise  be  considered  of  no  effect :  Ilis  majesty,  in  order  to 
give  a  new  proof  of  his  affection,  as  also  of  his  desire  to  consolidate  the  union  and 
good  correspondence  established  between  the  two  States,  has  been  pleased  to  consider 
their  representations :  His  majesty  has  consequently  declared,  and  does  declare  by 
these  presents,  that  he  consents  to  the  suppression  of  the  eleventh  and  twelfth 
articles  aforementioned,  and  that  his  intention  is  that  they  be  considered  as  having 
never  been  comprehended  in  the  treaty  signed  the  sixth  of  February  last. 

*'  Done  at  Versailles  the  first  day  of  the  month  of  September,  one  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  seventy-eight. 

Act  of  the  United  States  rescinding  the  foregoing  articles: 

"Declaration. — The  most  Christian  king  having  been  pleased  to  regard  the  repre- 
sentations made  to  him  by  the  General  Congress  of  North  America  relating  to  the 
eleventh  article  of  the  treaty  of  commerce,  signed  the  sixth  of  February,  in  the  jires- 
ent  year;  and  his  majesty  having  therefore  consented  that  the  said  article  should 
be  suppressed,  on  condition  that  the  twelfth  article  of  the  same  treaty  be  equally  re- 
garded as  of  none  effect ;  the  above-said  General  Congress  hath  declared  on  their  part, 
and  do  declare,  that  they  consent  to  the  suppression  of  the  eleventh  and  twelfth 
articles  of  the  above  mentioned  treaty,  and  that  their  intention  is  that  these  articles 
be  regarded  as  having  never  been  comprised  in  the  treaty  signed  the  sixth  of  Feb- 
ruary. 

"In  faith  whereof,  etc. 

*'  Molasses  "  was  then  the  chief  article  of  exportation  from  the  French 
West  Indies  to  New  P^ngland,  where  it  was  turned  into  rum,  and  in 
that  way  became  a  medium  of  exchange.     Many  New  England  tradi- 

thc  loyalist  element  in  the  Colonies  and  the  desire  on  both  sides  for  reconciliation. 
But  there  is  not  a  word  from  Franklin  or  his  associates  which  may  be  construed  as 
indicating  that  the  revolutionary  leaders  in  America  were  wiUing  to  accept  of  a 
settlement  with  Great  Britain  on  any  terms  short  of  independence. 

The  hesitation  of  the  French  ministry  in  1777  is  explained  by  Doniol  by  the  fear 
that  Great  Britain  would  suddenly  offer  independence  to  the  Colonies  and  then  turn 
upon  France  and  Spain  the  entire  force  which  this  reconciliation  would  liberate, 
while  the  English  Government,  on  the  other  hand,  was  prompt  to  suggest  to  France 
that  such  a  contingency  was  not  impossible.     (2  Doniol,  393,  691^.) 

Another  and  equally  potent  reason  was  the  desire  of  France  to  get  in  her  fishing 
vessels  with  their  hardy  crews  in  time  to  man  her  cruisers  in  advance  of  hostilities. 

344 


CHAP.  IV.]  TREATY    WITH    FRANCE.  [§  46. 

tioiis  illustrate  this;  one  of  Timotby  Dexter,  makiuga  fortune  by  buy- 
ing up  warming-pans,  then  going  out  of  fashion,  and  sending  them, 
amid  the  jeers  of  his  neighbors,  to  the  West  Indies,  where  they  were 
sold  at  a  profit  for  the  ladling  of  molasses;  the  other  of  an  emi- 
nent New  England  college  president,  who  sen.t  a  hogshead  of  rum  to 
Africa  to  buy  a  cook.  Now,  as  the  receipt  of  molasses  to  Kew  England 
was  of  such  importance,  it  seemed  to  Deane,  coming  from  Connecticut, 
that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  get  France  to  promise  not  to  lay  any 
impediment  in  the  way  of  its  exportation  from  the  West  Indies  to  the 
United  States.  Franklin,  willing  to  oblige  Deane,  though  evidently 
not  so  entliusiastic  as  to  the  commercial  qualities  of  molasses,  acqui- 
esced. When  the  clause  was  suggested  to  the  French  negotiators  the 
reply  was,  <' What  equivalent  do  you  give  us?"  Franklin,  holding, 
as  he  always  did,  that  it  was  a  defiance  of  all  sound  principles  of 
economy  for  a  nation  to  tax  exports  going  from  its  own  shores,  said, 
after  thinking  the  matter  over,  <'  You  bind  yourselves  not  to  impose  any 
tax  on  molasses  going  from  your  colonies  to  the  United  States ;  the 
United  States  will  agree  not  to  tax  anything  whatever  going  from  the 
United  States  to  your  colonies."  Now,  in  this  France  gave  up  some- 
thing, for  she  still  held  to  the  traditional  policy  of  taxing  exports  ;  but 
the  United  States  gave  up  nothing,  for  to  them  the  idea  of  taxing  ex- 
ports was  absurd,  and  therefore  they  got  molasses  free. 

But  so  it  did  not  appear  to  Arthur  Lee,  who  was  in  any  view  not  par- 
ticularly disposed  to  make  a  bargain  which  seemed  to  favor  molasses 
buyers  at  the  expense  of  all  other  interests,  and  he  communicated  his 
dissatisfaction  to  Izard,  who  felt  still  more  outraged  at  such  a  pro- 
cedure. The  consequence  was  that  Lee  bolted,  and  declared  he  would 
not  assent  to  the  articles  in  which  the  obnoxious  provisions  were  con- 
tained. Franklin,  feeling  that  it  was  not  desirable  to  risk  the  treaty 
on  a  matter  so  comparatively  unimportant,  agreed,  with  Deane's  as- 
sent, to  give  up  the  articles,  and  Lee  hastened  to  Versailles  with  a 
note  stating  this  proposed  change.  But  the  treaty  was  engrossed  ;  it 
was  too  late,  without  great  inconvenience  and  some  risk,  to  make  the 
modification,  and  all  that  could  be  done  was  to  induce  Vergennes,  who 
also  held  that  the  matter  was  of  little  importance,  to  agree  that  it 
should  be  left  optional  with  Congress  to  ratify  the  treaty  either  with  or 
without  the  disputed  articles.  Ratification  of  the  principal  stipulations 
of  the  treaty  was  what  France  asked,  and  as  to  which,  strange  to  say, 
Vergennes  felt  some  anxiety,  not  being  aware  how  irrevocably  inde- 
pendence was  resolved  on,  and  with  what  joy  the  treaty  as  a  whole 
would  be  greeted  by  Congress,  by  the  army,  and  by  the  people  of  the 
United  States. 

But  with  the  treaty  came  vehement  letters  from  Arthur  and  William 
Lee  and  from  Izard,  denouncing  the  twelfth  article  as  a  jobbing  trick, 
and  as  unduly  hampering  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  as  a  whole. 
Congress,  having  the  matter  left  to  its  option,  and  hearing  nothing  from 

345 


§47.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

Frauklin  iu  support  of  the  disputed  articles,  but  learuiug  that  he  was 
willing  that  they  should  be  dropped,  dropped  them,  in  which  France 
acquiesced.  But  the  wound  was  not  closed,  and  for  months,  if  not  for 
years,  Franklin's  course  in  forcing  into  the  treaty  a  clause  for  the  pro- 
tection of  New  England  rum  was  the  subject  of  invective  by  those  who 
followed  in  this  matter  Arthur  Lee.  * 

^spar*^^"*  ^"^  *''®^^'^^  *"*        §  ^^'  ^^^  following  is  the  substance  of  a  note 

of  January  8,  1778,  from  Louis  XVI  to  the  king 
of  Spain,  announcing  a  determination  to  treat  with  the  Colonies: 

"My  sincere  desire  to  maintain  that  true  harmony  and  system  which 
we  (the  Bourbon  family)  should  always  present  to  our  enemies  induces 
me  to  explain  to  your  majesty  my  views  as  to  present  affairs.  Enghmd, 
our  common  and  inveterate  enemy,  has  been  for  three  yearb  engaged  in 
a  war  with  her  American  Colonies.  In  this  contest  we  have  not  meddled, 
regarding  both  parties  as  English,  maintaining  open  commerce  with 
each.  In  this  way  Ametica  has  been  provided  with  arms  and  munitions, 
saying  nothing  of  the  supplies  of  money,  which,  as  a  matter  of  com- 
merce, were  also  forwarded.  England  has  taken  these  supplies  in  bad 
part ;  she  has  not  concealed  from  us  that  sooner  or  later  she  will  avenge 
herself,  and  she  has  already  seized  many  of  our  merchant  vessels,  of 
which  we  have  vainly  sought  the  restitution.  On  our  side  we  have  not 
lost  time.  We  have  fortified  our  most  exposed  colonies,  and  have  placed 
our  marine  service  on  a  better  basis — action  which  has  contributed  to 
increase  the  bad  humor  of  England.  The  recent  destruction  of  Bur- 
goyne's  army  and  the  imperiled  state  of  that  of  Howe  have  recently 

•  As  to  the  discussion  in  respect  to  this  treaty,  see  index,  title  Treaties  of  1778 ;  and 
as  to  the  objection  to  the  ''molasses"  clanse,  see  infra,  Lee  to  Izard,  January  28, 
1778;  Izard  to  Franklin,  January  28,  1778;  A.  Lee  to  Frauklin  and  Deaue,  January 
30,  1778 ;  Deane  to  Congress,  October  12,  1778. 

In  a  letter  of  Arthur  I^ee,  December  13,  1778,  to  Theodorick  Bland  (1  Bland  Papers, 
111)  it  is  said  : 

''So  far,  then,  were  my  colleagues  from  having  any  peculiar  merit  in  the  treaties, 
that  it  was  with  the  greatest  difficulty  I  persuaded  them  to  insist  on  the  recognition 
of  our  sovereignty  and  the  acknowledgment  of  our  independence.  These  were  pro- 
posed by  your  friend  (A.  Lee),  evaded  by  his  colleagues,  and  only  admitted  after 
being  reurged  in  a  manner  that  made  them  apprehend  the  consequences  of  an  opposi- 
tion they  could  not  justify." 

He  goes  on  to  say  that  "Mr.  D.  (Deane)  is  generally  understood  to  have  made 
£60,000  sterling  while  he  was  commissioner."  Whatever  may  have  been  Deane's 
subsequent  delinquencies,  it  is  now  well  known  that  he  came  back  to  the  United 
States  penniless.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  this  letter  is  attested  by  "  TI.  Ford,  (-sec- 
retary," whose  treachery  was  the  subject  of  public  action  in  Virginia.  (Infra,  ^ 
150,  ir)l.) 

As  to  Arthur  Lee  having  by  his  sole  efforts  obtained  from  France  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  our  independence,  his  memory  is  at  fault,  since  that  acknowledgment  was 
the  basis  on  which  the  treaty  negotiations  rested,  and  that  recognition  was  determined 
by  the  king  as  essential  to  his  own  position  as  early  as  December,  1777.  (See  Com- 
missioners to  Committee  of  Congress,  Dec.  18,  1777,  infra.) 

346 


CHAP.  IV.]     TREATY  WITH  FRANCE:    WAR  WITH  BRITAIN.     [§§  48,  49. 

made  a  total  change  in  the  rehitions  of  the  parties.  America  is  triumph- 
ant and  Enghmd  depressed,  though  still  maintaining  strong  military 
posts  within  the  Colonies,  as  well  as  unbroken  naval  force,  hoping,  if 
subjugation  be  impossible,  to  establish  an  efficient  alliance  with  the 
Colonies.  In  case  of  such  a  reunion  the  English  w'ould  not  forget  our 
bad  offices  rendered  to  them.  In  this  view,  as  the  grievances  we  have 
against  England  are  notorious,  I  have  considered,  after  taking  the 
advice  of  my  council,  and  particularly  of  the  Marquis  d'Ossuno,  that  it 
is  just  and  necessary  to  the  insurgents,  having  proposed  to  negotiate 
with  them,  to  treat  with  them  to  prevent  their  reunion  with  the  parent 
State." 

"^Britahf ''^'''^"^  **"  ^''^^^  §•  ^^*  ^^  March  13,  1778,  the  French  ambassa- 
dor at  Loudon  formally  notified  Lord  North  of 
the  treaties  of  amity  and  commerce  with  the  United  States,  who,  it  was 
alleged,  had  been  in  full  ponsession  of  the  independence  proclaimed 
by  their  Declaration  of  July  4, 177G.*  With  this  was  coupled  the  infor- 
mation that  no  special  commercial  advantages  were  given  by  these  trea- 
ties to  France,  and  it  Tvas  further  stated  that  King  Louis  XVI  was  con- 
fident that  his  Britannic  majesty  would  find  in  this  avowal  fresh  proofs  of 
the  French  desire  for  peace,  and,  animated  by  the  same  feeling,  would 
take  prompt  measures  to  prevent  any  interruption  of  Frenchand  Amer- 
ican commerce.  The  British  ministry  replied  by  immediately  recalling 
from  Paris  their  minister,!  and  embargoes  were  promptly  laid  on  French 
ships  in  British  ports,  which  was  retaliated  by  an  embargo  of  British 
ships  in  French  ports.J 

Declaration  of  war.  ^49,  Xhc  formal  proceedings  consequent  upon 

this  action  of  France  are  thus  stated  by  Phillimore : 

"  Pendiug  the  conflict  between  Great  Britain  and  her  Nortli  American  Colonies 
she  complained  more  than  once  of  the  unneutral  behavior  of  France,  and  the  decla- 
ration of  the  Marquis  de  Noailles  in  1778  to  the  cabinet  of  St.  James,  that  France 

*  The  fact  of  the  treaty  having  been  made  was  announced  by  Fox  in  the  House  of 
Commons  ten  days  after  its  signature.  (Infra,  »J  196.)  As  to  alleged  disclosure  of  the 
treaty  by  William  Lee  and  the  quarral  thereon,  see  infra,  $  177;  as  to  Bancroft's 
supposed  agency  in  the  disclosure,  see  supra,  ^  44 ;  infra,  ^  196. 

1 7  Flassans,  167. 

t  How  George  III  regarded  the  French  announcement  is  shown  by  the  following  to 
Lord  North,  of  March  13,  1778 : 

'*  The  paper  delivered  this  day  by  the  French  ambassador  is  certainly  equivalent  to 
a  declaration,  and  therefore  must  entirely  overturn  every  plan  proposed  for  strength- 
ening the  army  under  the  command  of  Lieutenant-General  Clinton  with  an  intent  of 
carrying  on  an  active  war  in  North  America.  What  occurs  now  is  to  fix  what  num- 
bers are  necessary  to  defend  New  York,  Rhode  Islan<l,  NoA^a  Scotia,  and  the  Floridas. 
It  is  a  joke  to  think  to  keep  Pensilvania  [siG'\,  for  we  must  from  the  army  now  in 
America  form  a  corps  sufficient  to  attack  the  French  islands,  and  two  or  three  thousand 
men  ought  to  be  employed  with  the  fleet  to  destroy  the  ports  and  warfs  [sic  |  of  the 
rebels."     (2  Correspondence  of  George  III  with  Lord  North,  148.) 

347 


§  49.]  INTRODUCTION.  [cHAP.  IV. 

had  signed  ''  uu  traits  d'amiti6  et  de  commerce"  with  "les  iStatsUnis  de  I'Am^rique 
eeptentrionale,  qui  sont  en  pleine  possession  de  I'ind^pendanco  prouonc6e  par  leur 
acte  du  4  Jnillet,  1776,"  was  immediately  followed  by  a  declaration  of  war  on  the 
part  of  Great  Britain  against  France,  and,  as  far  as  that  country  was  concerned,  never 
was  a  war  declared  upon  juster  grounds.  It  was  declared  not  on  account  of  the  mere 
establishment  of  diplomatic  relations  between  France  and  the  North  American  Colo- 
nies, but  on  account  of  the  long  tissue  of  dark  and  treacherous  machinations  which 
France  had  begnin  to  weave,  under  the  veil  of  the  strongest  professions  of  amity  and 
good-will,  against  the  peace,  honor,  and  interest  of  Great  Britain  on  the  first  appear- 
ance of  discontent  in  America  in  1765,  and  which  were  brought  to  light  by  the  act 
which  has  been  mentioned.  The  fact  rests  upon  the  unquestionable  authority  of  the 
memoirs,  since  published,  of  the  agents  employed  by  the  French  Government  to  ex- 
cite the  rebellion  in  North  America."     (2  Phillimore's  International  Law,  26.) 

''To  the  conduct  of  France  in  forming  an  alliance  (in  1778)  with  the  revolted 
North  American  colonists  of  Great  Britain  attention  has  been  already  drawn  in  an 
early  part  of  this  work,  and  it  Las  been  said,  perhaps  without  sufQcient  precision  of 
language  and  in  too  popular  a  manner,  that  this  conduct  'was  immediately  followed 
by  a  declaration  of  war  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  against  France.' 

"  It  would  have  been  more  correct  to  say  that  it  was  followed  by  the  withdrawal 
of  the  Euglish  ambassador  and  the  communication  of  a  message  from  the  crown 
to  Parliament,  as  follows: 

"  '  His  majesty,  having  been  informed  by  order  of  the  French  king  that  a  treaty  of 
amity  and  commerce  has  been  signed  between  the  court  of  France  and  certain  per- 
sons employed  by  his  majesty's  revolted  subjects  in  North  America,  has  judged  it 
necessary  to  direct  that  a  copy  of  the  declaration  delivered  by  the  French  ambassador 
to  Lord  Viscount  Weymouth  be  laid  before  the  House  of  Commons,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  acquaint  them  that  his  majesty  has  thought  proper,  in  consequence  of  this 
offensive  communication  on  the  part  of  the  court  of  France,  to  send  orders  to  his  am- 
bassador to  withdraw  from  that  court. 

"  '  His  majesty  is  persuaded  that  the  justice  and  good  faith  of  his  conduct  towards 
foreign  jiowers,  and  the  sincerity  of  his  wishes  to  preserve  the  tranquillity  of  Europe, 
will  bo  acknowledged  by  all  the  world ;  and  his  majesty  trusts  that  he  shall  not  stand 
responsible  for  the  disturbance  of  that  tranquillity  if  ho  should  find  himself  called 
upon  to  resent  so  unprovoked  and  so  unjust  an  aggression  on  the  honor  of  his  crown 
and  the  essential  interests  of  his  kingdoms,  contrary  to  the  most  solemn  assurances, 
subversive  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  injurious  to  the  rights  of  every  sovereign  power 
in  Europe.' 

"  A  doubtful  state  of  things  ensued,  fiuctuating  between  peace  and  war ;  for  in  spite 
of  the  remonstrance  of  some  of  the  wisest  statesmen  of  Great  Britain — a  remonstrance 
which  subsequent  events  well  justified— the  1^'rench  Mediterranean  fleet  was  allowed 
to  proceed  to  America,  where  it  arrived  in  July,  1778.  There  engagements  took  place 
between  the  English  and  French  ships,  though  no  declaration  of  war  was  then  Jcnoivn 
to  have  been  issued.  In  the  mean  while  the  channel  fleet  of  England,  under  Admiral 
Keppel,  came  into  collision  with  the  naval  forces  of  France. 

"The  English  admiral's  situation  (observes  the  writer  of  the  History  of  England  in 
the  Annual  Register  of  1779)  was  nice  and  difficult.  War  had  not  been  declared,  nor 
even  reprisals  ordered.  It  was,  however,  necessary  to  stop  these  frigates,  as  well  in 
order  to  obtain  intelligence  as  to  prevent  intelligence  being  conveyed.  Indeed,  it 
seemed  a  matter  of  indispensable  necessity  not  to  miss  the  opportunity  of  acquiring 
some  knowledge  of  the  state,  situation,  and  views  of  the  enemy.  But  that  fluctua- 
tion of  counsels  which,  as  has  been  stated,  seemed  to  prevail  at  that  time,  joined  to 
the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  admiral's  political  situation,  rendered  any  strong 
measure  exceedingly  hazardous.  He  might  have  been  disavowed,  and  a  war  with 
France  might  be  charged  to  his  rashness  or  to  the  views  and  principles  of  his  party. 
In  this  dilemma  the  admiral  determined  to  pursue  that  line  of  conduct  which  he 

348 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE    OF   FRANCE:    VERGENNES.  [§  SO. 

deemed  right,  and  to  abide  the  cousequences.  The  subsequent  behavior  of  the  French 
frigates  seemed  calculated  to  afford  a  justification  for  any  measure  of  violence  which 
he  could  have  adopted,  and  the  celebrated  action  between  La  Belle  Foule  and  the 
Arethusa  and  the  capture  of  the  Licorne  took  place  off  Jirest  on  the  17th  Juno,  1778; 
and  then  'the  French  king  made  use  of  the  engagement  with  La  Belle  Poule  and 
the  taking  of  the  other  frigates  as  the  ostensible  ground  for  issuing  out  orders  for 
reprisal  on  the  ships  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  ordinance  for  the  distribution  of  prizes, 
which,  as  we  have  already  observed,  had  been  passed  a  considerable  time  before, 
although  hitherto  kept  dormant,  was  now  immediately  published.  Similar  measures 
Avero  likewise  i)nrsucd  in  England  as  soon  as  the  account  of  these  transactions  was 
received.  Thus  nothing  of  war  was  wanting  between  the  two  nations  excepting 
merely  its  name,  or  rather  the  formality  of  its  proclamation.'"     (3  id.,  100.) 

verj;?enue8' training  and  char-        ^  50.  Ko  American  cau  look  without  interest 

acter.  -^ 

at  Yergenues'  portrait  as  given  l>y  Doniol  and 
in  tbe  Magazine  of  American  History  for  1885.  Grave,  sad,  thought- 
ful, anxious,  yet  full  of  dignity,  it  tells  of  a  past  of  experience  and  a 
present  of  responsibility.  It  was  painted  shortly  after  he  became  sec- 
retary of  foreign  affairs  under  Louis  XYI,  which  office  he  took  in  1774, 
when  he  was  fifty-seven  years  of  age.  His  public  life,  as  his  biogra- 
pher, Mayer,  tells  us,  had  been  given  to  diplomacy.  In  1750  he  was 
minister  to  Treves;  in  1752  he  went  to  Hanover  as  a  member  of  a  sort 
of  congress  there  held  under  the  auspices  of  George  II;  in  1755  he 
was  sent  to  Constautinople  as  ambassador,  where  he  distiuguished 
himself  by  singular  sagacity  and  patience  in  the  critical  controversies 
in  which  the  Porte  was  then  engaged  with  foreign  powers.  To  Sweden 
he  was  sent  in  1771,  to  conduct  negotiations  there  to  be  instituted 
bearing  on  the  relations  of  Sweden  and  Denmark.  His  simplicity, 
industry,  gravity,  and  intelligence  had  won  the  respect  of  Louis  XVI 
when  dauphin,  and  it  reflected  credit  both  on  himself  and  on  that 
unfortunate  monarch  that  he  should  have  been  x^laced  at  an  early 
period  of  the  new  reign  in  charge  of  the  foreign  affairs  of  the  realm. 
Vergennes  was  without  court  influence;  to  the  young  queen  he  had 
not,  by  his  prior  opposition  to  the  Austrian  alliance,  commended  him- 
self; but  the  restoration  of  the  French  crown  to  the  commanding  posi- 
tion which  it  held  in  the  earlier  years  of  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV  was 
his  object,  to  which  he  devoted  himself  with  an  earnest  simplicity 
which  soon  won  for  him  the  entire  confidence  of  the  king.  For  this 
purpose  he  was  ready  to  risk  a  war  with  England,  and  for  this  purpose 
he  labored  with  unflinching  euergy  and  laborious  skill  to  construct  a 
net-work  of  treaties  which  he  expected  would  make  for  France  strong 
allies  in  the  war  which  might  on  any  day  be  precipitated.  The  Bourbon 
family  alliance  was  renewed  and  made  more  stringent  by  affectionate 
appeals  of  the  young  king  to  his  uncle  of  Spain,  as  well  as  by  those 
calm  and  strong  arguments  which  Vergenues  knew  so  well  how  to  use. 
Russia  was  sedulously  and  in  part  successfully  courted,  and  the  old 
leanings  of  Frederick  the  Great  towards  France  were  revived  by  a 
system  of  delicate  attention.    By  Vergennes  was  negotiated,  aside 

349 


§  51.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

from  the  treaties  with  the  United  States,  alliances  with  Holland  and 
Switzerland ;  he  negotiated  the  peace  of  Teschen  j  he  became  a  party 
to  a  treaty  of  friendship  between  Portugal  and  Spain ;  as  mediator  he 
procured  the  adoption  of  articles  of  peace  between  Turkey  and  Russia 
and  between  Holland  and  the  empire  5  he  concluded  treaties  of  com- 
merce with  Sweden  and  Eussia,  and  treaties  settling  boundaries  with 
the  empire,  with  Liege,  with  Treves,  with  Nassau- Saarbriick,  with 
Deux-Ponts,  and  with  Bale.  His  desire  was  to  see  France,  while  re- 
taining her  old  dynasty,  rising  to  a  level  of  moral  and  economical 
greatness  which  she  had  not  yet  reached.  It  was  not  to  be  that  of 
France  rapacious,  as  in  the  meridian  of  Louis  XIV;  or  France  frivolous, 
as  in  the  decadence  of  Louis  XV;  but  it  was  to  be  that  of  France,  abso- 
lutist still,  developing  her  great  natural  resources,  multiplying  her 
industries,  rebuilding  her  navy,  and  restoring  her  commerce;  of  France 
greater  in  wealth  and  political  power  than  she  had  ever  been  before, 
but  grave,  humane,  and  just,  as  was  the  statesman  by  whom  this 
scheme  for  her  regeneration  was  designed.  To  this  work  it  was  essen- 
tial that  the  revolution  in  the  European  system  wrought  by  Britain's 
absorption  of  commerce  should  be  arrested,  and  it  could  be  arrested 
effectively,  he  thought,  by  the  wresting  from  Britain,  with  at  least 
the  acquiescence  of  other  European  continental  powers,  her  American 
colonies.*  In  this  way  revolution  abroad  was  invoked  to  prevent 
revolution  at  home.  Yet  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  only  one 
of  Vergennes'  treaties  which  remains  effective  was  that  sustainiog 
the  revolution  in  America.  Those  designed  to  prevent  revolution  in 
Europe  were  in  a  few  years  swept  away  by  revolution. 

Of  Vergennes'  integrity  the  condition  of  his  estate  is  an  illustration. 
He  lived  simply,  though  with  generous  hospitality,  as  the  journals  of  our 
negotiators  show.  His  predecessors  had  amassed  enormous  fortunes 
when  enjoying  the  opportunities  he  possessed — Colbert,  for  instance, 
leaving  100,000,000  of  francs,  Eichelieu  and  Mazarin  untold  wealth. 
What  Vergennes  left  did  not  much  exceed  2,000,000  of  francs,  a  sum 
which  was  the  legitimate  product  of  royal  bounty  and  of  salaries  for  a 
long  period  of  an  official  career  of  modest  though  hospitable  expendi- 
ture. His  domestic  life,  there  can  be  no  question,  was  one  of  purity  as 
well  as  of  simplicity.  But  his  domestic  life  gave  way  to  his  public 
duties.  To  these  he  devoted  himself  with  unremitting  industry.  For 
rest  he  seems  to  have  had  no  time.  We  find  him  making  appointments 
with  our  ministers  as  early  as  eight  in  the  morning  and  as  late  as  ten 
in  the  evening.  Between  these  periods  his  work  was,  as  his  biographer 
tells  us,  almost  incessant. 

^^iS^Ede^'n  indTve°rett™"^'        ^  ^^'  ^^  ^^^^  ^^  interesting  to  notice  on  this 

point  the  views  of  four  distinct  observers,  three 
of  them  personally  acquainted  with  Vergennes,  being  at  the  time  min- 

*  As  to  French  motives,  see  supra,  $  43. 
350 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE    OF    FRANCE:    VERGENNES.  [§  bl- 

isters at  Paris  from  tbo  United  States  and  from  England,  and   the 
fourth  subsequently  minister  fron)  the  [Juited  States  to  England. 

Jeft'erson,  when  in  Paris  as  minister  from  the  Uuited  States,  thus,  on 
January  30,  1782,  writes  to  Madison : 

''The  Couut  de  Vergennes  in  ill.  The  possibility  of  his  recovery  roudors  it  dan- 
gerous for  mo  to  express  a  doubt  of  it ;  but  he  is  in  danger.  He  is  a  great  minister 
in  European  afiairs,  but  has  very  imperfect  ideas  of  our  institutions  and  no  con- 
fidence in  them.  His  devotion  to  the  principles  of  pure  despotism  renders  him  un- 
affectionate  to  our  governments,  but  his  fear  of  Euglaud  makes  him  value  us  as  a 
make- weight.  He  is  cool  and  reserved  in  political  conversation,  but  free  and  familiar 
on  other  subjects,  and  a  very  attentive  and  agreeable  person  to  do  business  with. 
It  is  impossible  to  have  a  clearer,  better  organized  head,  but  age  has  chilled  his 
heart." 

Of  Yergenues'  death  Franklin,  on  April  22,  1787,  writing  to  Grand, 
fcays: 

"  So  wise  and  good  a  man  taken  away  from  the  station  he  filled  is  a  great  loss  not 
only  to  France,  but  to  Europe  in  general,  to  America,  and  to  mankind."  ^ 

William  Eden,  afterwards  Lord  Auckland,  who  negotiated  with  Ver- 
gennes the  Anglo-French  commercial  treaty  of  1786,  thus  writes  a  few 
days  later : 

*'  In  other  respects  also,  and  in  a  more  serious  degree,  the  death  of  M.  de  Vergennes 
gives  me  the  utmost  concern.  I  have  seen  many  public  men  of  different  countries 
and  descriptions,  and  it  is  a  justice  which  I  owe  to  the  dead,  without  any  disgrace 
to  the  living,  to  say  that  I  never  met  with  any  man  whose  manner  of  acting,  both 
in  oflBcial  and  i^rivate  life,  was  to  me  more  satisfactory  or  more  pleasing.  During 
Tiearly  ten  months  that  I  had  almost  daily  access  to  him  I  never  met  with  any 
circumstance  that  gave  me  even  a  momentary  distrust.  In  the  beginning  of  our 
negotiations,  when  I  had  a  great  want  of  language,  he  was  patient,  polite,  and  en- 
couraging ;  he  gradually  became  cheerful,  cordial,  and  friendly ;  and  the  last  morn- 
ing that  I  passed  with  him,  which  was  the  last  of  his  doing  business,  I  could  not  help 
remarking  when  I  came  home  that  it  was  impossible  for  me  not  to  acknowledge  that 
his  conduct  towards  me,  from  my  first  arrival  to  that  moment,  had  been  such  as  to 
entitle  him  both  to  respect  and  affection.  I  know  that  in  England  we  have  in  some 
quarters  unforgiving  feelings  relative  to  him,  but  I  know  also  that  he  had  great 
public  talents  and  great  private  virtues ;  and  in  discussion  between  man  and  man  I 
always  found  that  he  went  as  directly  and.  as  fairly  to  the  point  as  Mr.  Fox  himself 
can  do,  which  is  saying  much."  t 

Some  years  later  we  have  the  following  summary  by  Edward  Everett: 

"Whether  the  policy  which  he  (Vergennes)  pursued  was  the  boldest  which  he 
could  have  adopted  no  man  now  possesses  the  means  of  judging,  certainly  not  with- 
out access  to  the  most  secret  archives  of  the  French  court  at  that  period.  But  having 
adopted  it,  it  is  but  justice  to  this  minister  to  admit  that  he  pursued  it  with  singular 
equanimity,  firmness,  and  temper.  *  *  *  Strong  in  the  good-natured  acquiescence 
of  the  king,  in  the  decisive  support  of  the  queen,  in  the  gratified  animosity  of  the 
people  to  England,  and  in  the  public  opinion  of  Europe,  the  Count  de  Vergennes 

*  9  Bigelow's  Franklin,  381. 

tEden  to  Sheffield,  Paris,  Feb.,  1787,  1  Journal  and  Correspondence  of  Lord  Auck- 
land, 401, 

351 


§52.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

administered  the  govenimeut  with  a  skill  and  success  rarely  allotted  to  statesmen 
even  of  a  higher  order  of  mind.  His  personal  qualities  come  in  for  no  little  share  of 
the  praise.  The  patience  and  good-will  of  the  man  helped  out  the  politician  and  the 
minister."* 

As  we  shall  have  occasion  to  see  hereafter,  tke  position  taken  by 
him  as  to  the  American  war  was  imposed  on  him  not  by  any  confidence 
in  republican  institutions  or  by  any  sympathy  with  insurgents,  no 
matter  how  strong  their  case  might  be,  but  by  the  conditions  which 
surrounded  him.  When,  however,  the  position  was  taken,  he  loyally 
adhered  to  it  from  grounds  of  policy  as  well  as  of  honor.!  And  what 
he  did  he  did  skilfully,  being  both  cautious  and  bold,  and  endowed 
with  a  knowledge  of  Euroi)ean  politics  at  least  equal  to  that  possessed 
by  any  contemporary  statesman. 

How  far  chargeable  with du-        s  59.   As  wiU  hereafter  be   seen,  Vergennes, 

phcity.  •'  7  o  7 

through  Gerard,  his  minister  at  Philadelphia, 
denied,  in  January,  1779,  that  France  had  given  gratuitous  assistance 
to  the  United  States  in  1776  through  Beauraarchais,t  and  it  was  fur- 
ther declared  b}^  Gerard  that  the  munitions  of  war  previously  furnished 
to  the  United  States  came  not  from  the  French  Government,  but  from 
business  establishments  in  France.  Yet,  on  February  25,  1783,  it  was 
expressly  stated  in  the  ^'contract"  between  Franklin  and  Yergennes 
of  that  datejl  that  "gratuitous  assistance"  to  the  extent  of  3,000,000 
livres, in  the  shape  of  "aids  and  subsidies,"  were  furnished  by  the  king 
to  Congress  before  the  treaty  of  February,  1778,  of  which  sum  1,000,000, 
it  appeared,  was  paid  to  Beaumarchais  on  June  10,  177G. 

It  has  been  urged  that  if  the  last  statement  was  true  the  first  was 
false;  that  if  the  first  was  true  the  last  was  false,  and  that  either  way 
both  England  and  the  United  States  were  intentionally  deceived  by 
Yergennes.  Yet  this  does  not  necessarily  follow.  English  history 
supplies  several  instances  in  which  subsidies  given  as  loans  or  consist- 
ing merely  of  government  guaranties  of  private  remittances  have  been 
subsequently  turned  into  gifts.  In  the  beginning  of  a  war  of  uncertain 
duration — such,  fbr  instance,  as  that  of  the  Spanish  succession,  or  that 
in  which  Maria  Theresa  and  Frederick  the  Great  were  the  principals, 
or  that  which  followed  the  French  revolution — England,  when  going 
into  a  coalition,  went  into  it  chiefly  as  the  money  partner.  She  made  for 
herself  the  best  terms  she  could.  She  said,  "  I  lend  you  this  money," 
or  she  stood  behind  her  own  bankers  and  let  them  understand  that  she 
would  see  them  safe  in  their  advances.  Yet,  as  the  struggle  became 
fiercer  and  her  allies  became  weaker,  she  was  not  unwilling  to  say  to 
them,  when  their  further  aid  could  in  no  other  way  be  secured,  "  What 

*  Edward  Everett,  33  North  American  Review,  473. 

\  Infra,  ^  54. 

X  See  infra,  §  G2,  and  also  Gerard  to  Congress,  Jan.  4,  5,  10,  1779. 

II  See  infra,  §  64. 

362 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE    OF    FRANCE:    VERGENNES.  [§52. 

I  first  seut  to  you  as  a  loan  or  a  guaranty  I  now  givej  what  I  now  send 
must  be  a  loan."  No  one  would,  on  such  a  condition  of  things,  charge 
an  English  minister  with  falsehood  should  he  on  retrospect  speak  of 
the  first  transaction  as  a  gratuity. 

Such  was  very  much  the  condition  of  things  with  regard  to  the  French 
aid  to  the  United  States  during  the  revolutionary  war.  In  1116,  for 
instance,  the  aid  given  through  Beaumarchais  was  not  only  in  name 
bat  in  reality  a  loan,  whatever  might  have  beeiPthe  case  with  the  money 
given  secretly  in  Paris  to  the  commissioners.  For  this  there  were  good 
reasons.  Oongress  had  asked  only  for  a  loan,  or  for  supplies  of  arms 
and  clothing,  and  haA^  pledged  itself  to  pay  for  what  was  given  by 
American  produce,  then  bringing  a  high  price  in  Europe.  Whatever 
was  sent  in  the  way  of  supplies  was  sent  as  a  mercantile  adventure,  to 
be  so  paid  for  j  and,  as  appears  by  a  memorandum  of  the  committee  of 
secret  correspondence  (hereafter  given  under  date  of  October  1,  1776), 
was  received  as  a  "  loan.''  And  that  the  French  Government  should  then 
treat  this  aid  simply  as  a  secret  loan  or  guaranty  for  which  payment 
should  be  required  in  produce  there  were  good  reasons.  The  "  insurrec- 
tion ''  was  in  its  infancy ;  the  policy  of  France  was  no  doubt  to  keep  it 
alive  by  secret  business  accommodations,  but  not  until  success  Avas  in 
some  manner  assured  to  cojamit  herself  by  supplying  it  with  munitions 
of  war  liable  to  arrest  and  investigation  on  the  high  seas.  There  would 
not  be  this  risk  with  sales  of  munitions  of  war  through  private  houses, 
even  though  such  houses  should  have  been  previously  subsidized  by 
the  government.* 

The  "  exchange  "  also  of  French  war  material  for  American  produce 
was  at  that  particular  moment  easily  effected.  French  venders  of  mu- 
nitions of  war  or  clothing  could  buy  these  supi^lies  cheap  in  France,  or 
could  obtain  them  on  long  credits  from  the  government,  or  even  buy 
them  from  others  with  funds  which  the  government  might  supply  on 
the  same  principle  o-n  which  it  made  advances  to  other  business  con- 
cerns. On  the  other  hand  the  Colonies  were  teeming  with  tobacco, 
with  indigo,  with  rice,  which  could  go  back  in  return  cargoes,  and  for 
which,  as  we  learn  from  the  memorandum  of  the  secret  committee  above 
referred  to,  there  was  at  that  time  the  probability  of  a  safe  passage.  The 
speculation,  therefore,  would  be  good  for  both  parties,  supposing  the 
transaction  to  be  in  private  hands,  they  exchanging  their  surplus  pro- 
duce with  the  probabilities  of  great  pecuniary  advantage  at  least  to  the 
French  forwarders.!  There  is  every  reason  to  hold,  therefore,  that  what 
France  supplied  to  the  United  States  in  1776  was  not  a  gratuity,  but  a 
loan  or  guaranty  to  be  paid  by  the  return  of  American  produce.     Nor 

*  It  shuuld  be  observed  that  Congress,  after  receiving  Gerard's  disclaimer  of  the 
royal  origin  of  the  supplies  received  in  1776  and  1777,  resolved,  on  January  12,  1779, 
that  his  ''most  Christian  majesty,  the  great  and  generous  ally  of  these  United  States, 
did  not  preface  his  alliance  with  any  supplies  whatever  sent  to  America." 

t  See  further,  as  to  conflicting  statements  in  this  relation,  infra,  $  62.^.,  142. 

23  WH  353 


§  52.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

was  there  anything  strange,  in  the  paternal  system  of  government  then 
existing  in  France,  in  the  crown  supplying  funds  to  private  houses  en- 
gaged in  forwarding  supplies  to  America.  Subsidies  of  this  kind  were 
and  still  are,  under  the  paternal  system,  common  in  cases  in  which 
industries  which  the  government  desires  to  succeed,  claim  to  be  unable 
to  succeed  without  government  support.  And  even  governments  not 
supposed  to  run  on  the  '^ paternal'^  system  have,  in  our  own  days, 
granted  subsidies  to  lin^  of  steamers  on  the  condition  that  they  should 
be  turned  over  to  the  government  in  case  of  war. 

It  must  also  be  remembered  that  in  February,  1783,  when  the  above 
statment  of  "  gratuitousness  "  was  made  by  Yergennes,  there  were  many 
reasons  why  France  should  speak  of  the  aid  rendered  to  the  United 
States  in  1776  as  a  gratuity.  The  United  States  were  in  1783  in  desper- 
ate pecuniary  difficulties.  IvTever  had  their  credit  been  so  low.  They 
had  no  money  to  pay  to  foreign  creditors.  They  had  no  facilities  of 
their  own  for  sending  produce  abroad.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  instead  of  being  an  uncertain  venture, 
was  in  1782  recognized  by  Great  Britain,  in  the  preliminary  articles,  as 
an  independent  power  ;  and  if,  when,  as  the  critical  period  of  the  gen- 
eral j)acitication  drew  near,  the  United  States  had  deserted  France, 
tbis  desertion,  dishonorable  as  it  would  have  been,  would  have  been 
seriously  injurious  to  French  interests.  It  may  have  been  for  these 
reasons  that  France  should  in  1783  have  been  ready  to  treat  a  part  of 
the  loan  of  1776  as  canceled,  and  have  spoken  of  it,  as  she  did,  as  a 
gratuity. 

It  is  also  charged  that  Vergennes  suppressed  the  truth  in  his  conver- 
sations with  Stormont,  British  minister  in  Paris  in  1777.  In  these  con- 
versations, however,  as  reported  by  Stormont  to  his  government,  the 
vulnerable  point  of  money  advances  to  the  Colonies  did  not  come  up, 
Stormont  being  evidently  without  information  in  this  line  on  which* he 
could  base  an  inquiry.  What  he  had  to  say  was  with  regard  to  the 
fitting  out  of  American  privateers  in  French  ports  and  permitting  in 
such  ports  the  sale  of  prizes  made  by  these  privateers.  As  to  this  it 
may  be  said  that  whenever  he  gave  timely  notice  to  Yergennes  of  prob- 
able intended  performances  of  this  kind  Yergennes  interfered,*  and  Yer- 
gennes also  did  not  dispute  the  liability  of  France  to  Britain  for  any 
negligence  in  such  interference.  But  beyond  this  he  did  not  go.  He 
may  well  have  argued  that  it  was  the  business  of  a  belligerent  to  give 
notice  to  a  neutral  of  the  fitting  out  of  privateers  in  the  neutraPs  ports, 
not  the  duty  of  the  neutral  to  establish  an  enormously  expensive  and 
oppressive  police  at  his  ports,  to  prevent  such  vessels  from  sailing.  He 
may  well  have  argued  also  that,  if  he  had  suspicions  that  such  vessels 
were  fitting  out,  it  was  not  his  duty  to  disclose  them,  nor  was  it  his  duty 
to  tell  the  British  minister  that  he  was  making  his  own  preparations  to 

*  See  Vergennes  to  Commissioners,  July  16,  1777,  infra. 
354 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  53. 

intervene  in  the  strua^le  if  lie  found  it  was  being  pressed  to  an  extreme 
wliich  would  be  prejudicial  to  tbe  interests  of  France  and  would  imperil 
the  peace  of  tbe  civilized  world.     He  may  bave  well  said,  ''  Wlien  you 
were  preparing  to  spring  upon  us  at  tbe  outset  of  tbe  late  war,  you  gave 
us  no  notice  wbat  tbose  prodigious  armaments  you  were  constructing 
were  for,  but  you  waited  until  tbe  season  came  wben  my  mercbautmen 
were  coming  to  port  witb  full  cargoes,  and  you  then  suddenly  pounced 
down  on  tbemj  and  tbere  is  no  reason  wby  I  sbould  not  in  like  man- 
ner swoop  down  on  you  wben  tbe  opportunity  comes."    Tbese  reasons 
Yergennes  may  bave  given  to  bis  king  and  bis  colleagues  for  bis  silence 
as  to  tbe  preparations  going  on  in  French  ports.     But  it  is  difficult  to 
reconcile  the  professions  of  friendship  for  Britain  with  which  he  over- 
whelmed Stormont  and  bis  repudiation  of  all  assistance  to  the  "  insur- 
gents'' with  the  fact  that  be  bad  at  that  very  time  given  considerable 
aid  to  tbe  American  commissioners  at  Paris.     Stormont,  it  is  true,  while 
questioning  him  persistently  as  to  xH'ivateers,  never  asked  him  as  to 
jnoney  contributions  to  America.     Tbe  whole  drift,  bowev^er,  of  Ver- 
genues'  numerous  conversations  with  Stormont  was  that  France  was 
governed  by  friendly  feelings  towards  Britain,  and  even  wben  French 
recognition  of  American  independence  was  announced  to  the  British 
ministry  this  was  with  an  expression  of  trust  that  this  recognition  would 
not  impair  the  friendly  relations  which  so  hfi^)pily  existed  between  the 
two  sovereigns.     This,  however,  may  be  regarded  as  a  mere  formal  ex- 
pression of  civility,  such  as  is  common  to  all  correspondence,  diplomatic 
as  well  as  social  j  and  in  this  way  these  expressions  of  friendship  even 
as  late  as  the  time  (1777)  when  tbe  alliance  of  France  with  America  was 
announced,  may  be  cited  as  showing  tbe  i)ure  formality  of  expressions 
of  this  class. 

The  more  serious  charge  remains  that  Yergennes,  in  a  conversation 
with  Grenville  in  Franklin's  presence,  in  the  fall  of  1782,  said  that  no 
aid  was  given  by  France  to  America  until  after  a  final  breach  between 
tbe  Colonies  and  the  mother  country.  But  this  conversation  was  in- 
formal and  oral;  no  notes  were  taken  of  it  at  the  time;  different  ver- 
sions of  it  come  to  us;  and  in  such  cases  great  allowances  are  to  be 
made  for  the  uncertainty  of  memory.  Aside  from  this,  it  is  not  likely 
that,  if  this  statement  was  regarded  at  tbe  time  as  a  material  falsifica- 
tion, we  would  have  had  from  Eden,  who  was  familiar  witb  all  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  British  foreign  office,  so  strong  a  eulogium  on  Yergennes 
as  that  which  is  quoted  above.* 

"^uifeSk'SlsToteVi-        §  ^'^'  ^^^^^  f^r  the  secret  convention  of  April 
eries  and  the  Mississippi.       12,  1779,  between  Fraucc  and  Spain  conflicted 

with  the  treaties  of  February,  1778,  between 
France  and  the  United  States,  has  been  much  discussed.  As  the  con- 
vention of  April  12,  1779,  is  given  us  by  Doniol  (iii,  803)  in  the  shape  in 

*A8  to  Yergennes'  correspondence  in  respect  to  America,  see  index,  title  Vergennes. 

355 


§  53.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

which  it  was  actually  executed,  it  is  proper  that  its  true  text  should 
be  carefully  examined,  so  as  to  show  its  effect  in  this  relation. 

The  preamble  and  the  first  two  articles  state  the  reasons  for  the 
accession  of  Spain  to  the  war,  and  the  nature  of  the  aid  to  be  remlered. 

Then  come  the  following  : 

"Art.  3.  Their  Catholic  and  very  Christian  majesties  renew  the  obligations  of  the 
seventeenth  article  of  the  family  compact,  and  in  pursuance  thereof  promise  not  to 
either  directly  or  indirectly  entertain  any  proposition  from  the  common  enemy  with- 
out communicating  it  reciprocally  ;  and  neither  of  the  two  mnjesties  shall  sign  with 
such  enemy  any  treaty,  convention,  or  any  document  of  any  kind  whatsoever  with- 
out the  prior  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  other, 

"Art.  4.  The  very  Christian  king  (of  France),  in  strict  execution  of  the  engage- 
ments contracted  by  him  with  the  United  States  of  America,  proposes  and  reriuests 
that  his  Catholic  majesty  (king  of  Spain),  on  the  day  he  declares  war  against  Eng- 
land, shall  recognize  the  sovereign  independence  of  the  United  States,  and  he  shall 
engage  not  to  lay  down  his  arms  until  this  indei)endence  is  recognized  by  the  king  of 
Great  Britain,  it  being  indispensable  that  this  point  shall  be  the  essential  base  of  all 
negotiations  for  peace  which  may  me  instituted  hereafter.  The  Catholic  king  has 
desired  and  still  desires  to  gratify  the  very  Christian  king,  his  nephew,  and  to  x^ro- 
cure  for  the  United  States  all  the  advantages  (avantages)  they  desire  and  which  it 
is  possible  to  obtain.  But  as  his  Catholic  majesty  has  as  yet  not  concluded  with  them 
any  treaty  by  which  their  reciprocal  interests  have  have  been  settled,  he  reserves  the 
right  to  do  so,  and  to  come  to  an  agreement  at  that  time  as  to  whatever  bears  on  the 
said  independence ;  and  from  this  moment  he  engages  not  to  conclude  nor  assist  by 
his  mediation  any  treaty  or  arrangement  with  those  States,  or  relative  to  them,  with- 
out notifying  the  very  Christian  king,  and  without  concerting  with  him  whatever 
has  any  connection  with  the  above-mentioned  articles  of  independence. 

"Art.  5.  In  view  of  the  peace  and  the  definitive  treaty  which  result  from  the  war, 
his  very  Christian  majesty  proposes  to  acquire  the  following  advantages  or  benefits  : 

"1<>.  The  revocation  and  abolition  of  all  the  articles  of  treaties  which  deprive  his 
very  Christian  majesty  of  the  liberty  which  by  right  belongs  to  him  of  erecting  such 
land  or  water  works  at  Dunkirk  as  ho  deems  necessary ;  2^,  the  expulsion  of  the 
English  from  the  island  and  fisherieries  of  Newfoundland  ;  3^',  absolute  and  unlimited 
liberty  of  commerce  in  the  East  Indies,  and  the  right  to  acquire  and  fortify  such  fac- 
tories as  his  majesty  may  deem  expedient ;  4°,  the  recovery  of  Senegal,  and  entire 
liberty  of  commerce  with  Africa  outside  of  the  English  factories  ;  fy,  the  irrevocable 
possession  of  the  island  of  St.  Domingo ;  6",  the  abolition  or  the  complete  execution  of 
the  treaty  of  commerce  concluded  at  Utrecht  in  1713  between  France  and  England. 

"Art.  6.  If  the  very  Christian  king  succeeds  in  becoming  master  and  acquiring 
possession  of  the  island  of  Newfoundland,  the  subjects  of  the  Catholic  king  are  to 
be  admitted  to  its  fisheries,  and  the  two  sovereigns  for  this  purpose  shall  come  to  an 
agreement  as  to  the  benefits,  rights,  and  i^rivileges  which  the  said  subjects  of  his 
Catholic  majesty  shall  be  permitted  to  enjoy. 

"Art.  7.  The  Catholic  king  expects  to  obtain,  on  his  side,  by  the  war  and  the  con- 
sequent treaty  of  peace,  the  following  advantages  : 

"  l".  The  restitution  of  Gibraltar ;  2°,  the  possession  of  the  river  and  the  fort  of 
Mobile  ;  3°,  the  restitution  of  Pensacola,  with  all  the  coast  of  Florida  which  extends 
along  the  channel  (canal)  of  Bahama ;  so  that  no  foreign  power  can  have  a  settlement 
on  this  cannel ;  4«,  the  expulsion  of  the  English  from  the  bay  of  Honduras,  and  the 
execution  of  the  prohibition  stipulated  by  the  treaty  of  1763,  of  the  forming  of  any 
settlement  on  this  bay,  or  in  the  other  Spanish  territories;  5°,  the  revocation  of  the 
privilege  accorded  in  that  treaty  to  the  English  to  cut  dye-woods  on  the  coasts  of 
Campeachy  ;  and  6°,  the  restitution  of  the  island  of  Minorca. 

"Art.  8.  In  case  the  Catholic  king  shall  succeed  in  depriving  the  English  of  access 

356 


CHAP.  IV.J  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  53. 

to  the  coast  and  bay  of  Campeacby  and  of  tho  right  of  cutting  dye-wood  there,  his 
Catholic  majesty  shall  accord  (his  privilege  to  the  subjects  of  his  very  Christian 
majesty,  settling  with  him  as  to  the  advantages,  rights,  and  prerogatives +hey  there 
enjoy. 

"Art.  9.  Their  Catholic  and  very  Christian  majesties  promise  to  use  all  their  efforts 
to  procure  and  acquire  all  the  advantages  specified  above,  and  to  continue  these 
efforts  until  they  obtain  the  end  proposed,  agreeing  mutually  not  to  lay  down  their 
arms,  and  to  make  no  treaty  of  peace,  truce,  or  suspension  of  hostilities  without 
having  at  least  obtained  and  being  respectively  assured  of  the  restitution  of  Gibral- 
tar and  the  removal  of  tho  restrictions  relative  to  tho  fortifications  of  Dunkirk,  or, 
in  default  of  this  article,  any  other  object  at  the  disposal  of  his  very  Christian 
majesty. 

It  is  only  recently  that  the  fall  text  of  this  secret  convention,  as  pub- 
lished by  Douiol,  has  been  brought  to  light.  Mr.  Bancroft,  in  the  tenth 
volume  of  his  history,  in  its  earlier  editions,  summarizes  the  then  current 
version  as  follows : 

"France  bound  herself  to  undertake  the  invasion  of  Great  Britain  or  Ireland;  if 
she  could  drive  the  British  from  Newfoundland,  its  fisheries  were  to  be  shared  only 
with  Spain.  For  trifling  benefits  to  be  acquired  by  herself,  she  promised  to  use  every 
effort  to  recover  for  Spain  Minorca,  Pensacola,  and  Mobile,  the  bay  of  Honduras, 
and  the  coast  of  Campeachy ;  and  the  two  courts  bound  themselves  not  to  grant 
peace,  nor  truce,  nor  suspension  of  hostilities  until  Gibraltar  should  be  restored. 
F7'om  the  United  States  Spain  ivas  left  free  to  exact,  as  iJie  price  of  lier  friendship,  a  renun- 
ciation of  everij  part  of  the  hasin  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  the  lakes,  of  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi,  and  of  all  the  land  between  that  river  and  the  Alleghanies.  This  conven- 
tion of  France  with  Spain  modified  the  treaty  between  France  and  the  United  States. 
The  latter  were  not  bound  to  continue  the  war  till  Gibraltar  should  be  taken  ;  still 
less  till  Spain  should  have  carried  out  her  views  hostile  to  their  interests.  They 
gained  the  right  to  make  peace  whenever  Great  Britain  would  acknowledge  their 
independence." 

In  th(!)  fifth  volume  of  the  *'  author's  last  revision "  of  this  history 
(1885),  308,  this  passage  is  reproduced,  with  the  omission  of  the  lines 
marked  in  italics;  while  in  the  next  sentence,  with  one  or  two  merely 
verbal  changes,  the  words  "  her  [Spain's]  views  hostile  to  their  inter- 
ests" are  changed  to  "policy  hostile  to  their  interests." 

In  Oircourt's  translation  of  this  portion  of  Mr.  Bancroft's  history  the 
older  rendering  of  that  history  is  given,  and  a  note  is  attached  to  the 
italicized  clause  saying  that  by  it  Spain  intended  to  revive  in  their  full 
vigor  the  most  extensive  pretensions  of  the  French  crown  before  the 
treaty  of  1763,  by  which,  if  made  operative  in  favor  of  Spain,  the  whole 
of  the  continent  around  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  would  have  Spain  for  its 
sole  master. 

That  the  version  on  which  Mr.  Bancroft  relied  is  inaccurate  in  the 
clause  purporting  to  give  the  ^Newfoundland  fisheries  exclusively  to 
France  and  Spain  will  be  seen  by  recurring  to  the  French  text  ot  article 
G,  as  given  by  Doniol  and  as  translated  above.     That  text  is  as  follows : 

"  Si  le  roi  tr^s-chr6tien  r^usissait  a  se  rendre  maltre  et  a  s'assurer  de  la  possession 
do  I'ile  de  Terre  Neuve,  les  sujets  du  roi  catholique  serout  admis  a  y  faire  la  peche, 
et  les  deux  souverains  concerterout  a  cot  elfet  les  avantages,  droits,  et  prerogatives 
dout  devront  jouir  lesdits  sujets  de  sa  majesty  catholique." 

357 


§  53.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

There  is  nothing  whatever  in  this  clause  which  shuts  the  United 
States  out  from  any  participation  in  these  fisheries.  All  that  France 
promises  to  Spain  is  a  share  in  the  fisheries  if  they  and  the  adjacent 
islands  fall  into  the  possession  of  Fiance. 

It  is  true  that  there  was  a  strong  party  in  France  which  desired  the 
recovery  of  at  least  maritime  Canada,  with  the  adjoining  fisheries,  and 
that  Luzerne  and  Eayneval,  if  not  Vergennes,  were  not  disposed  to  aid 
the  United  States  in  obtaining,  with  Britain,  exclusive  possession  of 
those  fisheries.  But  while  Vergennes  was  resolved  not  to  aid  this  claim, 
he  was  equally  ready  to  acquiesce  in  it. 

Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  convention  to  sustain  the  position,  based 
on  the  version  current  before  the  document  was  authoritatively  pub- 
lished, that  France  by  this  instrument  put  it  in  the  power  of  Spain  to 
exact  from  the  United  States  the  renunciation  of  the  whole  trans- 
Alleghany  region  and  of  the  basin  of  St.  Lawrence.  This  supposed 
clause,  though  adopted  by  Oircourt,  is  omitted  by  Mr.  Bancroft,  as  is 
noticed  above,  in  the  edition  of  his  excellent  history  published  in  1885, 
and  it  is  omitted  correctly;  since,  so  far  from  it  being  included  in  the 
convention,  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  fourth  article,  which  engages  S])ain 
to  recognize  the  ''  sovereign  independence'^  of  the  United  States,  and 
to  obtain  for  them  all  possible  advantages,  reserving  for  future  negotia- 
tions between  Spain  and  this  new  "independent  sovereign  "  the  settle- 
ment of  all  questions  between  them,  subject,  if  touching  independence, 
to  the  joint  action  of  France.  The  position  of  France  as  to  questions 
between  Spain  and  the  United  States  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  France 
considered  it  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  her  engagements  under  this 
convention  for  her  to  refuse  to  agree  in  1783  to  a  general  peace  unless 
Britain  should  make  definitive  the  preliminary  convention  of  1782  with 
the  United  States,  by  which  the  United  States  took  an  undivided  share 
in  the  fisheries  and  the  entire  British  title  to  the  Mississippi  Yalley. 

The  only  stipulation  in  this  secret  convention  of  1779  which  in  any 
way  collides  with  the  interests  of  the  United  States  is  the  provision  as 
to  the  river  and  fort  at  Mobile  and  the  coast  of  Florida  bordering  on 
the  Bahama  channel.  Now,  on  the  maxim,  Uxpressio  U7ims,  est  exclusio 
alterkis,  this  allotment  of  the  Florida  coast  to  Spain  is  an  exclusion  of 
any  claim  to  allot  to  Spain  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  and  the 
territory  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Alleghanies.  It  must  also  be 
remembered,  as  is  justly  remarked  by  Doniol,  that  while  Florida  was 
originally  settled  by  Spaniards,  it  was  in  1779  in  the  undisputed  posses- 
sion of  Britain,  and  that  so  far  from  its  allotment  to  Spain  in  case  it 
could  be  wrested  from  Britain  being  complained  of  by  the  United 
States,  it  was  given  to  Spain,  on  the  general  pacification  of  1783,  with- 
out any  remonstrance  by  the  United  States.  And  the  conviction  that 
prevailed  as  far  back  as  1777,  that  the  recognition  of  the  independent 
sovereignty  of  the  United  States  would  necessitate  sooner  or  later  the 
absorption  of  Florida  and  of  the  Mississippi  Yalley  in  the  new  republic, 

358 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES  [§53. 

may  explain  why  the  United  States  made  no  objection  to  Florida  going 
to  Spain,  from  which  it  conld  be  more  readily  obtained  than  from 
England.* 

Whether  the  convention,  as  above  rendered,  modified  the  treaty  of 
alliance  of  1778  so  as  to  release  the  United  States  from  the  obligations 
of  tliat  treaty,  depends  upon  the  construction  we  give  to  the  seventh 
article.  In  the  spurious  version  of  that  article,  as  above  noticed,  the 
independence  of  the  United  States  seems  in  some  way  to  be  made 
dependent  on  the  restoration  of  Gibraltar  as  a  condition  of  peace. 
But  there  is  nothing  in  the  authoritative  document  to  sustain  this  con- 
struction. All  that  the  parties  to  1  he  convention  agree  to  is  to  continue 
the  war,  and  not  to  lay  down  their  arms,  and  to  make  no  treaty  of 
peace,  unless  assured  of  the  restitution  of  Gibraltar  and  the  removal  of 
the  restrictions  on  Dunkirk.  This  agreement,  in  its  terms,  excludes  the 
United  States  from  its  obligations,  and  so  far  from  affecting  the  prior 
stipulation  of  France  that  she  would  not  make  peace  until  the  independ- 
ence of  the  United  States  is  acknowledged,  the  convention  adds  to  that 
stipulation  the  additional  guaranty  of  Spain  ;  for  by  the  fourth  article 
of  the  treaty  the  king  of  Spain  agrees  not  to  lay  down  his  arms  until 
this  independence  is  recognized  by  Great  Britain,  which  is  declared  to 
be  the  essential  base  of  all  negotiations  of  peace.  The  engagement  of 
France  and  Spain,  therefore,  to  continue  the  war  until  they  were  sat- 
isfied as  to  Gibraltar  and  Dunkirk  was  one  which  in  no  way  touched  the 
United  States.  France  and  Spain  were  bound,  as  the  ^'  base  "  on  which 
they  acted,  to  secure  the  independence  of  the  United  States.  When, 
however,  that  independence  was  secured,  they  agreed,  by  an  article 
made  and  open  to  be  modified  exclusively  by  themselves,  to  continue 
the  war  until  their  plans  as  to  Gibraltar  and  Dunkirk  were  effected. 
And  that  this  was  a  mere  bilateral  revocable  agreement  relative  to 
themselves  alone,  and  kept  secret  as  so  revocable,  api)ears  from  the  fact 
that  not  long  after  its  execution  the  negotiations  between  France  and 
Spain  show  that  they  regarded  it  as  an  informal  provisional  engage- 
ment, which  from  its  nature  yielded  to  the  exigencies  of  war. 

In  considering  how  far  Yergennes  was  justified  in  entering  into  this 
convention,  we  must  also  remember  that  at  the  time  of  its  execution 
France  and  the  United  States  were,  as  will  be  hereafter  shown, t  in 
almost  desperate  straits.  The  winter  of  1778-79  and  the  following 
spring  comprised  the  darkest  period  in  the  war.  The  credit  of  Con- 
gress was  gone.  Its  active  armies  were  reduced  to  the  small  body  of 
troops  which  were  then,  half  starved  and  badly  clothed,  in  the  huts  of 
Valley  Forge.     The  French  fleet  in  the  American  waters  appeared  to 

*  Time,  without  treaty,  so  argued  Luzerne  in  a  disi)atcli  to  Versjjennos,  will  in  forty 
years  till  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  with  the  population  of  the  United  States  ;  and, 
if  eo,  there  is  no  use  in  hazarding  peace  for  a  stipulation  which,  without  beinj; 
expressed,  is  one  of  the  necessities  of  the  future. 

t  Infra,  ^  S'.l. 

359 


§  53.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

be  paralyzed.  In  Europe  it  was  id  capable,  according  to  Vergennes' 
statement,  of  meeting  the  British,  except  at  a  risk  he  was  unwilling  to 
advise.  Spain  had  a  navy  ready  for  sea  which  might  turn  the  balance, 
and  it  was  essential  equally  to  the  United  States  and  France  that  this 
aid  should  be  secured.  "If  the  Spaniards,"  said  Washington,  writing 
to  Gouverneur  Morris,  on  October  4, 1778,*  "  would  but  join  their  fleets 
to  France  and  commence  hostilities,  my  doubts  would  all  subside. 
Without  it  I  fear  the  British  navy  has  it  too  much  in  its  power  to  coun- 
teract the  schemes  of  France."  Still  stronger  are  Franklin's  state- 
ments, given  in  the  same  period  in  the  following  pages.  And  that  this 
was  the  conviction  of  Congress  is  shown  by  its  proceedings  at  that 
period,  hereafter  detailed,  stating  how  large  a  price  it  was  willing  to 
pay  to  obtain  the  support  of  Spain.  It  has  been  said  that  the  conven- 
tion of  April,  1779,  was  brought  before  the  American  negotiators  of 
the  peace  of  1782  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  the  treaty  of  alliance 
of  1778  was  abrogated  so  far  as  to  enable  the  United  States  to  negotiate 
a  peace  with  Britain  without  consulting  France.  But  to  this  the  answer 
is  that  the  genuine  convention,  as  above  given,  was  not  published  until 
many  years  after  the  conclusion  of  the  peace  of  1782,  and  that,  even  had 
it  been  in  their  hands,  there  was  nothing  in  it,  as  we  have  seen  to  in- 
validate the  obligations  entered  into  by  the  United  States  in  the  treaty 
of  1778.  It  is  not  improbable,  however,  that  a  spurious  summary  of 
the  convention  of  1779  may,  under  English  auspices,  have  found  its 
way  to  the  American  negotiators  of  1782,  and  that  this  summary  may 
have  been  the  basis  of  the  misconceptions  which  existed  on  the  subject 
until  the  publication  of  the  original  text. 
Vergennes  has  been  also  charged  with  siding  against  the  United 

*  6  Washington's  Writings,  81. 

In  1781  the  British  navy  was  composed  of  about  eighty  ships  of  the  line  in  commis- 
sion. This  fleet  much  exceeded  that  of  France  both  in  ships  and  in  armament,  and 
hence  Britain  was  able  to  keep  a  naval  superiority  in  the  American  waters  down  to 
the  alliance  between  France  and  Spain.  This  alliance  necessitated  the  distribution 
of  the  English  fleet  so  as  to  cover  Gibraltar  and  the  West  Indies  and  to  protect  Eng- 
land from  an  invasion  which  the  ascendency  of  the  allies  made  feasible.  Hence  it 
was  that  when  De  Grasse  reached  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  on  August  31,  1781,  he  was  able 
to  bring  with  him  twenty-eight  ships  of  the  line  and  six  frigates,  giving  him  control 
of  those  waters. 

As  showing  that  Congress  felt  the  necessity  of  the  Spanish  alliance  at  the  crisis  of 
1778,  Mv.  Bancroft  gives  the  following: 

"A  spirit  of  moderation  manifested  itself,  especially  in  the  delegation  from  New 
York.  Gouverneur  Morris  was  inclined,  to  relinquish  to  Spain  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi,  and,  while  he  desired  the  acquisition  of  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia,  asserted 
the  necessity  of  a  law  for  setting  a  limit  to  the  American  dominion.  '  Our  empire,' 
said  Jay,  l  he  President  of  the  Congress,  '  is  already  too  great  to  be  well  governed,  and 
its  Constitution  is  inconsistent  with  the  passion  for  conquest.'  Not  suspecting  the 
persistent  hostility  of  Spain,  as  he  smoked  his  pipe  at  the  house  of  Gerard,  he  loudly 
commended  the  triple  alliance  of  France,  the  United  States,  and  Spain."  (10  Ban- 
croft's United  States,  18:i,  citing  Gerard  to  Vergennes,  Oct.  20,  Dec.  22,  1778.  See 
also  Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the  Kevolution,  39  /T'- ,  •^)4  jfT. ) 

3G0 


CitAP.  IV.]  ATTlTUDTi  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGRNNES.  [§  53. 

States  ill  the  peace  negotiations  of  1782  in  respect  to  the  fisheries  and 
the  Mississippi.  But,  as  has  been  said  in  another  place,*  Vergennes' 
position  during  the  negotions  of  1782  and  1783  was  at  least  as  difficult 
as  that  of  William  III  in  the  negotiations  which  preceded  the  peace  of 
Kyswick.  Vergennes  was  the  head  of  an  alliance  against  p]ngland 
which  contained  members  as  dissonant  and  with  interests  as  conflicting 
as  those  which  William  III  combined  in  the  alliance  against  France  of 
which  he  was  the  head.  If  it  was  impossible  for  William  III  to  con- 
clude an3'  treaty  which  would  satisfy  each  of  the  allies  whom  he  led — 
if,  in  the  peace  which  he  actually  concluded,  it  was  a  matter  of  course 
that  he  should  b(i  accused  by  some  of  the  allies  of  undue  reticence  in 
the  communication  of  peace  projects,  or  of  want  of  fairness  in  the 
settlement  of  such  projects — so  it  was  also  necessarily  the  case  with 
Vergennes.  In  both  cases  there  were  the  usual  pledges  of  co-opera- 
tion between  the  allies;  yet  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  is  for  the 
benefit  of  all  the  contracting  parties  that  such  pledges  are  to  be  liber- 
ally construed,  since  no  negotiations  on  behalf  of  allies  could  be  con- 
ducted if  it  were  understood  that  such  negotiations  were  to  be  always 
by  the  allies  in  concert,  and  that  not  a  word  was  to  be  spoken  by  any 
one  of  them  in  private  conference  with  the  common  enemy.  Such  con 
ferences  there  must  be.  They  were  held,  and  with  good  results,  by 
Portland  and  Bouftiers  prior  to  the  peace  of  Eyswick ;  they  were  held 
by  Vergennes,  through  Eayneval,  with  Shelburne;  and  by  Shelburne, 
through  Oswald,  with  Franklin.  It  was  so  from  the  nature  of  things, 
and  neither  ally  had  the  right  to  complain  that  each  merely  tentative 
and  informal  conversation  was  not  at  once  reported  to  the  other.t 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  no  breach  of  the  treaty  ot  1778  for 
France  to  say  to  the  United  States,  "  While  I  will  sacrifice  everything  to 
make  good  your  independence,  I  trust  you  will  not  press  your  claims 
against  Britain  to  such  an  extent  as  to  make  peace  impossible ;  that 
you  will  not  embarrass  my  title  to  the  fisheries  and  Canada;  and  that 
you  will  not  hazard  the  alliance  by  a  conflict  on  your  part  with  Spain 
as  to  your  western  boundaries." 

^Appendix  Dig.  Int.  Law,  2d  ed. 

t  According  to  a  uiemoraudiim  of  Luzerne,  given  by  Sparks,  ''Rayneval's  visit  to 
England  has  had  no  other  object  than  to  acquire  light  as  to  the  true  intention  of  the 
English  ministry  indicated  in  the  overtures  which  they  had  made  to  us  in  an  indirect 
manner.  The  first  object  of  Rayneval's  conference  was  the  independence  of  the 
United  States  and  the  sending  of  new  powers  to  Mr.  Oswald."    (78  Harvard  MSS.) 

The  instructions  to  Gerard,  when  about  to  leave  for  America,  are  given  in  3  Doniol, 
1133.  They  were  drafted  by  Rayneval,  but  were  corrected  and  expanded  by  Ver- 
gennes. The  United  States  were  to  be  asked  to  agree  to  give  Florida  to  Spain  in  case 
she  should  come  into  the  alliance.  In  a  letter  from  Rayneval  to  Monroe,  of  November 
14,  179.5,  he  declared  that  the  independence  of  the  United  States  was,  by  his  instruc- 
tions, in  his  visit  to  Shelburne  in  1782,  the  sole  object  for  which  he  was  authorized 
to  treat,  and  that  he  was  enjoined  to  make  no  stipulations  limiting  American  posses- 
sions. In  his  report  of  his  proceedings  to  Vergennes  (3  Circourt,  42,  49),  he  professes 
to  have  followed  his  instructions. 

361 


§  53.]  I]S(TRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

It  must  be  remembered,  when  we  consider  the  riglitfuluess  of  Yer- 
gennes  using  his  influence  to  induce  the  United  States  not  to  make  the 
surrender  by  Spain  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  a  condition  of  peace,  that 
the  stipulation  of  France  in  her  treaty  with  Spain  as  to  Gibraltar  was  just 
as  stringent  as  her  treaty  with  the  United  States  as  to  independence; 
and  that,  in  addition  to  this,  France  engaged,  in  her  treaty  with  Spain, 
to  use  every  effort  to  obtain  for  Spain,  Minorca,  Pensacola,  Mobile, 
and  the  Oampeachy  coast.  Yergennes'  correspondence  shows  that,  in 
acting  as  arbiter  between  Spain  and  the  United  States,  he  did  not  lean 
towards  Spain.  He  compelled  Spain  to  give  up  the  stipulation  as  to 
Gibraltar  and  to  moderate  her  other  demands ;  wliile  he  told  the  United 
States  that  France  would  never  lay  down  arms  until  the  stipulation  of 
independence  was  satisfied.  It  must  also  be  remembered  that  when  he 
urged  the  United  States  not  to  make  i)eace  depend  upon  acquisition  of 
the  Mississippi  Yalley,  he  was  sustained  by  Gouverneur  Morris  and  Jay 
(the  latter  being  President  of  Congress),  who  held  that  at  that  time  the 
United  States  had  territory  enough.*  IS^or,  once  more,  did  Yergennes 
at  any  time  ask  that  Congress  should  surrender  its  title  to  the  Missis- 
sippi Yalley.  All  he  asked  was  that  that  title  should  not  be  insisted 
on  as  a  condition  of  general  pacification.  His  views  in  this  respect 
prevailed;  nor  did  the  United  States  thereby  suffer.  From  the  nature 
of  things,  under  the  ordinary  laws  of  i^opulation,  tbe  Mississippi  Yalley 
was  bound  to  belong  to  the  United  States.  Aside  from  this,  the  United 
States,  under  the  preliminaries  of  1782,  took  whatever  title  Britain 
had  to  that  valley ;  and  eminent  British  statesmen,  with  prophetic 
forecast,  did  not  hesitate  to  say  that  it  would  be  far  better  for  the  in- 
terest of  England  to  have  that  great  valley  thrive  as  a  new  and  impor- 
tant factor  in  commerce  under  the  active  hands  of  Anglo-Americans 
than  have  it  continue  torpid  under  the  pall  of  Spain.  Kor  did  Yer- 
gennes, when  he  had  the  opportunity  to  give  effectual  aid  to  Spain  in 
this  respect,  by  protesting  against  the  British  cession  of  the  Missis- 
sippi to  the  United  States  in  the  preliminary  articles,  give  that  aid. 
From  Sparks  on  this  point  we  have  the  following  statement,  which  is 
borne  out  by  the  full  correspondence  now  before  us : 

''  I  liave  read  in  the  office  of  foreign  affairs  in  Loudon  the  confidential  corre- 
spondence of  the  British  ministers  with  their  commissioners  for  negotiating  peace  in 
Paris.  I  have  also  read  in  the  French  office  of  foreign  affairs  the  entire  correspondence 
of  the  Count  de  VergenneS;  during  the  whole  war,  with  the  French  ministers  in  this 
country,  developing  the  policy  and  designs  of  the  French  court  in  regard  to  the  war 
and  the  objects  to  be  obtained  by  the  peace.  I  have,  moreover,  read  the  instructions 
of  the  Count  de  Vergenues  when  Rayneval  went  to  London,  and  the  correspondence 
which  passed  between  them  while  he  remained  there,  containing  notes  of  conversa- 
tions with  Lord  Sheiburne,  on  the  one  part,  and  Count  de  Vergennes'  opinions  on 
the  other.  After  examining  the  subject  with  all  the  care  and  accuracy  which  this 
means  of  information  has  enabled  me  to  give  to  it,  I  am  prepared  to  express  my  opin- 
ion that  Mr.  Jay  was  mistaken  botli  in  regard  to  the  aims  of  the  French  court  and 
the  plans  pursued  by  them  to  gain  their  supposed  ends."     (8  Dip.  Corr.  Am.  Rev.,  '209. ) 

*  See  Bancroft's  United  States,  305;  infra,  ^  86. 
362 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  54. 

When  France  was  notified  of  tlie  signing  ortlie  preliminary  articles, 
she  continued,  though  she  had  reasons  to  complain  of  the  mode  of  ne- 
gotiation, to  sustain  the  United  States  with  pecuniary  aid,  and  did  her 
best  to  satisfy  Spain  with  the  conditions  the  United  States  had  ob- 
tained, derogatory  as  they  were  to  Spain.* 

Yergennes'  fidelity  to  his  engagements  to  America  in  respect  to  in- 
dependence was  put  to  a  final  test  in  1783,  when  the  British  Govern 
ment  suggested  to  France  and  Spain  definitive  terms  of  peace  which 
would  exclude  America.  Fox  was  averse  to  making  the  preliminary 
articles  final,  holding  that  America,  at  the  best,  had  not  yet  a  i)ennau 
ent  government  and  might  wait  j  and  it  was  even  intimated  that  France, 
by  acceding  to  this  position,  would  obtain  better  terms  than  were  other- 
wise obtainable.  Spain,  whose  moody  dislike  of  Aineri<-aii  independ- 
ence grew  with  time,  was  quite  ready  to  accede  to  this  view.  Yergenues 
might  readily  have  set  up  the  American  separate  prt^'liminary  pacifica- 
tion of  1782  as  an  excuse  for  entering  into  a  French  separate  definite 
pacification  in  1783.  But  his  answer  was  emphatic  and  decisive.  '^  I 
will  not,"  so  he  substantially  said,  "  sign  any  definite  treaty  of  peace 
unless  the  American  preliminaries  of  1782  are  made  final."  They  un- 
doubtedly gave  America  concessions  which  were  to  him  unexpectedly 
large.  But  these  concessions,  large  as  they  were  and  i)rejudicial  as  they 
were  to  Spain,  he  insisted  on  in  1783  at  the  risk  of  renewal  of  the  war.t 

In  instructions  to  Luzerne  of  December  21,  1782,  Vergennes  speaks  of  an  interview 
he  had  with  Frankhn,  explanatory  of  the  ''irregularity"  involved  in  the  separate 
action  of  the  commissioners  in  the  peace  negotiations.  According  to  Yergeunes, 
Franklin  stated  that  the  commissioners  had  not  the  slightest  intention  of  doing  any- 
thing in  derogation  of  their  engagements  to  France,  and  that  they  would  deeply 
deplore  any  diminution  thereby  of  the  regard  shown  them  by  the  king.  Vergennes 
speaks  of  the  interview  as  being  kindly  od  both  sides,  and  the  explanation  as  ac- 
cepted by  him. 

^depelTdence.''  ^"^"''^'* '°-  §  54.  The  coupsc  of  rcasoniug  which  led  Yer- 
geunes to  the  conclusion  that  the  independence 
of  the  United  States  must  be  acknowledged  and  supported  has  been 
already  considered.^:  Of  his  fidelity  to  the  pledge  made  by  him  not  to 
make  peace  until  the  independence  of  the  United  States  was  acknowl 
edged  by  Britain  there  can  be  no  question.  France  resisted  every  pos"^ 
sible  influence  brought  to  bear  on  her  to  desert  the  Colonies  and  to 
make  a  separate  x)eace.  It  must  at  the  same  time  be  remembered  that 
the  same  motives  of  policy  which  induced  France  to  enter  into  the  war 
operated  with  increased  strength  to  induce  her  to  continue  it  till  the 
Colonies  formed  an  independent  empire.  It  is  interesting  to  observe 
that  Chatham's  policy  of  peace  and  a  federal  union  with  the  Colonies 
was  opposed  by  both  George  III  and  Yergeunes.  George  III  opposed 
it  with  obstinate  vigor,  partly  from  his  hatred  to  liberty,  partly  from  his 
hatred  to  Chatham,  and  he  succeeded  in  defeating  it  in  Britain.     Yer- 


Jnfra,  §  109,         t  See  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  68.         t  Supra,  $  39. 

363 


§  55.]  INTRODUCTION.  fcHAP.  IV. 

geaues  opposes!  it  because  it  would  make  Britain  irresistible  at  sea  and 
enable  her  to  concentrate  her  forces  and  those  of  her  reconciled  colonies 
against  France.  That  the  United  States  svould  have  been  guilty  of  the 
perfidy  of  a  separate  peace  with  Britain  could  not  be  readily  assumed ; 
yet  in  the  war  of  the  Spanish  succession  cases  of  such  perfidy  had  oc- 
curred, and  Yergennes'  earnestness  in  stipulating  for  independence 
increased  proportionally  with  tlie  danger  which  would  accrue  to  France 
if  America  should  return  to  the  British  fold.  Yet  this  should  not  make 
us  forget  that  the  cause  of  independence  was  supported  by  Yergennes 
before  war  began  and  at  the  risk  of  war,  and^that  this  support  was 
continued  by  him  when  the  war  was  closing,  though  he  was  promised 
advantageous  terms  if  he  would  make  a  separate  peace  with  Britain 
and  abandon  America  to  her  fate.  * 

His  reiatie»8  to  BeauBaar-        §  55^  The  CDisodc  of  Bcaumarchais,  which  will 

be  considered  in  detail  in  the  following  sections, 
was  a  survival  of  the  secret  diplomacy  of  Louis  XY,  for  a  short  time 
exercising  an  extraordinary  intlnence  in  the  first  period  of  the  reign  of 
Louis  XYI.  Louis  XYI,  on  reaching  the  throne,  found  the  machinery 
of  secret  diplomacy  so  ingeniously  constructed  by  his  predecessor  in  full 
operation  j  and,  as  we  will  see,  for  one  or  two  delicate  inquiries  at  the 
outset  of  the  new  reign,  Beaumarchais,  who  of  all  the  diplomatists  of 
th?s  peculiar  breed  was  the  most  adroit  and  fertile  in  expedients,  was 
veil  fitted.  Hence  came  his  employment,  and  from  his  employment 
came  his  suggestions,  full  of  brilliant  wit  and  effective  reasoning,  as  to 
America.  But  the  antagonism  between  him  and  Yergennes  was  too 
marke<l  to  permit  sustained  political  relationship;  and  when  Frank- 
lin entered  into  diplomatic  life  in  Paris  Beaumarchais  ceased  to  take  - 
prominent  political  position.  And  even  during  the  period  of  Beau- 
marchais' greatest  activity  it  must  be  remembered  that  he  was  not 
technically  Yergennes'  subordinate.  It  was  one  of  the  peculiarities 
of  the  secret  diplomacy  of  Louis  XIY  and  Louis  XY,  as  depicted  by 
Broglie  in  his  admirable  treatise  on  that  topic,  that  even  the  existence 
of  the  secret  agent  was  not  to  be  supposed  to  be  known  to  the  king's 

*  See  2  Doniol,  60. 

The  diplomatic  correspoudence  of  Vergennes  relative  to  America  in  1775  is  given 
at  large  in  Doniol's  great  work,  and  iu  part  in  Ibe  appendix  to  the  French  edition 
of  De  Witt's  Jefferson  and  Democracy,  and  an  abstract  of  the  same  correspondence 
is  given  in  the  English  translation  of  the  same  work,  page  383^.  See  also  index, 
title  Yergennes. 

Vergennes'  sincerity  is  illustrated  by  the  following  passage  from  a  confidential  let- 
ter to  him  of  January  11,  1782,  by  Montmorin,  French  minister  at  Madrid  : 

''That  which  I  believe  indispensable  is  to  lose  no  occasion  of  inculcating  on  Spain 
that  we  can  not  consent  to  peace  without  the  establishment  of  the  independence  of 
the  United  States.  There  will  lie  tlip  great  difficnlty  when  the  time  shall  come  for 
serious  negotiation,  and  I  have  no  doubt  Spain  will  see  Avith  chagrin  their  inde- 
pendence established."  (1  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  2')0,  where  other  papers 
to  the  same  effect  are  given.) 

364 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDP]  OF  FRANCE:    VERGENNES.  [§§  56,  57, 

ostensible  ministers.*  This  was  not  the  case  with  Beaumarchais;  but 
at  the  same  time  Beanmarchais'  political  intluencc  ceased,  as  we  will 
see,  when,  on  the  arrival  of  Franklin,  Vergennes,  with  Franklin's  aid, 
took  control  of  Anglo- American  diplomacy. 

^IcrdsScs!''^^""''"*^''^^'''        §   ^^'    Beaumarchais,   as    a    dramatist,   while 

equal  to  Sheridan  in  wit  and  knowledge  of 
stage  effect,  produced  in  the  Marriage  of  Figaro,  exposing  the  wrongs 
and  absurdities  of  the  old  regime,  a  political  and  moral  result  which 
Sheridan's  dramas  did  not  even  attempt.  Beaumarchais  also,  in  his 
controversy  with  regard  to  the  Maupeou  Parliament,  published  pam- 
])hlets  rivaled  in  polemic  literature  only  by  Swift's  "  Draper  Letters,'^ 
and,  like  Swift,  he  was  able  to  address  a  ministry  in  terms  of  free  and 
vivid  argument  which  compelled  a  hearing,  if  not  assent.  He  may  have 
been  as  trifling  as  Scarron  in  social  life,  but  in  political  intrigue  he  had 
the  subtle  tact  of  Talleyrand.  He  had  a  prophetic  power  which  few 
statesmen  of  his  day  possessed.  He  exposed  in  the  Marriage  of  Figaro 
the  crater  over  which  France  was  then  suspended.  He  was  the  first 
political  writer  of  his  day  to  develop  in  popular  terms  the  position  that 
it  was  through  America  that  the  balance  of  European  power  was  to  be 
adjusted.  Nor  were  his  powers  simply  speculative.  For  nearly  a  year 
j)rior  to  the  arrival  of  Franklin  he  was  the  exclusive  business  agent 
under  whose  superintendence  supplies  were  sent  to  America,  and  by 
these  supi^lies  the  American  armies  received  materials  without  which 
they  could  not  have  at  the  time  maintained  themselves  in  the  field. 

Opinions  of  Martin  and  Gui-        §  57.  Martin,  in  his  History  of  the  Decline  of 

the  French  Monarchy,  thus  writes : 

'^Tho  Freucli  Government,  which  felt  the  blast  of  war  whistling  about  it,  and 
which  (Ireadcd  this  war,  was  a  prey  to  lively  anxieties.  Public  opinion  bore  upon  it 
forcibly.  Counsels  and  incitements  came  to  it  from  all  sides.  Among  the  numerous 
memorials  addressed  to  the  king  by  private  individuals  we  remark  two  written  by  a 
man  of  ardent  and  daring  mind,  of  restless  and  stormy  renown,  of  questionable  char- 
acter, and  of  prodigious  activity — that  Beaumarchais,  who  was  to  some  onlj'  a  dan- 
gerous intriguer,  suspected  of  pretended  crimes,  and  to  others — to  the  majority — the 
heir  presumptive  of  Voltaire  and  the  successful  conqueror  of  the  Maupeou  Parliament. 
Employed  by  Louis  XV  in  the  secret  diplomacy,  he  had  numerous  relations  with  the 
different  English  y)arties,  and  was  allied  at  once  with  one  of  the  ministers  and  with 
the  demagogue  Wilkes.  In  his  first  memorial  (September  21,  1775)  he  exaggerated 
the  internal  perils  of  England,  which  he  depicted  as  on  the  eve  of  revolution.  Poli- 
ticians have  often  fallen  into  this  delusion  at  the  sight  of  disturbances  which  would 
suffice  to  overthrow  other  governments,  but  which  here  produce  only  a  momentary 
commotion,  owing  to  the  habits  of  legal  order  and  the  safety-valves  open  to  the  ebul_ 
lition  of  popular  feeling.  Beaumarchais  saw  more  clearly  concerning  America,  which 
he  declared  lost  to  the  mother  country.  In  the  second  memorial  (February  29,  1776) 
he  sought  to  demonstrate  the  necessity  of  succoring  the  Americans  if  it  was  desired 
to  save  the  French  West  Indies,  and  even  to  preserve  peace.  Victorious,  England 
would  fall  back  on  our  islands;  vanquished,  she  would  make  the  same  attempt  to 

*  See  ipfra,  $  59. 

365 


§58.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

indemnify  herself  for  her  losses.  Should  the  parliamentary  opposition  prevail  and 
reconcile  the  two  Englauds,  they  would  unite  against  us.  It  was  only  possible  to 
preserve  peace  between  France  and  England  by  ineventing  peace  between  England 
and  America,  and  counterbalancing  the  forces  of  both  parties  by  secret  aid  to  the 
Americans.  He  proposed  to  succor  America  through  the  medium  of  private  individ- 
uals, who  were  to  be  pledged  to  secrecy. 

"  The  minister  of  foreign  affairs  (Vergennes)  hesitated  long ;  the  king  and  Maurepas 
still  longer.  The  annoyances  and  acts  of  violence  of  the  English  navy  towards  our 
shipping  caused  Beaumarchais,  who  wrote  letter  after  letter  to  the  king  and  minis- 
ter, to  gain  ground."*' 

Guizot  (1870)  writes  as  follows : 

"  Peter  Augustin  Caron  de  Beaumarchais,  born  at  Paris  on  the  24th  of  January, 
1732,  son  of  a  clock-maker,  had  already  acquired  a  certain  celebrity  by  his  lawsuit 
against  Councillor  Goezman  before  the  parliament  of  Paris.  Accused  of  having 
defamed  the  wife  of  a  judge,  after  having  fruitlessly  attempted  to  seduce  her,  Beau- 
marchais succeeded,  by  dint  of  courage,  talent,  and  wit,  in  holding  his  own  against 
the  whole  magistracy  leagued  against  him.  He  boldly  appealed  to  public  opinion. 
^I  am  a  citizen,'  he  said;  '  that  is  to  say,  I  am  not  a  courtier,  or  an  abbe,  or  a  noble- 
man, or  a  financier,  or  a  favorite,  nor  anything  connected  with  what  is  called  influ- 
ence (puissance)  nowadays.  I  am  a  citizen;  that  is  to  say,  something  quite  new, 
unknown,  unheard  of  in  France.  I  am  a  citizen ;  that  is  to  say,  what  you  ought  to 
have  been  for  the  last  two  hundred  years;  what  you  will  be  perhaps  in  twenty!' 
All  the  spirit  of  the  French  revolution  was  here  in  those  most  legitimate  and  at  the 
same  time  most  daring  aspirations  of  his. 

*' French  citizen,  as  he  proclaimed  himself  to  be,  Beaumarchais  was  quite  smitten 
with  the  American  citizens ;  he  had  for  a  long  time  been  ^jleading  their  cause,  sure, 
he  said,  of  its  ultimate  triumph.  On  the  10th  of  January,  1776,  three  weeks  before  the 
declaration  of  independence  [sic],  M.  de  Vergennes  secretly  remitted  a  million  to  M. 
de  Beaumarchais ;  two  months  later  the  same  sum  was  intrusted  to  him  in  the  name  of 
the  king  of  Spain.  Beaumarchais  alone  was  to  appear  in  the  affair,  and  to  supply 
the  insurgent  Americans  with  arms  and  ammunition.  'You  will  found,'  he  had  been 
told,  '  a  great  commercial  house,  and  you  will  try  to  draw  into  the  money  of  private 
individuals.  The  first  outlay  being  now  provided,  w^e  shall  have  no  further  hand  in 
it ;  the  affair  would  compromise  the  government  too  much  in  the  eyes  of  the  English.' 
It  was  under  the  style  and  title  of  Rodrigo  Hortalez  &  Co.  that  the  first  installment 
of  supplies,  to  the  extent  of  more  than  three  millions,  was  forwarded  to  the  Amer- 
icans ;  and  notwithstanding  the  hesitation  of  the  ministry  and  the  rage  of  the  Eng- 
lish, other  installments  soon  followed.  Beaumarchais  w^as  heuceferth  personally  in- 
terested in  the  enterprise  ;  he  had  commenced  it  from  zeal  for  the  American  cause  and 
from  that  yearning  for  activity  and  initiative  w^hich  characterized  him  even  in  old 
age.  '  I  should  never  have  succeeded  in  fulfilling  my  mission  here  without  the  inde- 
fatigable, intelligent,  and  generous  efforts  of  M.  de  Beaumarchais,'  wrote  Silas  Deane 
to  the  secret  committee  of  Congress.  '  The  United  States  are  more  indebted  to  him 
on  every  account  than  to  any  other  person  on  this  side  of  the  ocean.'" t 

Opinions  of  Lom6nie,  Donioi,        ^   5g,  j^   Lomenie's  Beaumarcliais    and    His 

and  Stil!6.  ' 

Times  (1855),  a  work  which  won  for  the  author 
a  seat  in  the  French  Academy,  we  have  the  following : 

"The  French  ambassador  at  London  was  then  the  Count  (afterwards the  Duke)  de 
Guines,  a  man  of  wit  and  pleasure,  but  of  very  ordinary  capacity,  whose  information, 

*  2  Martin's  History  of  the  Declineof  the  French  Monarchy,  :^73,  Booth's  translation.) 
t5  Guizot's  History  of  France,  370,  English  translation.     See  also  criticism  by  Frout 
de  Fontpertius  in  his  work,  Les  ^Etats-Unis,  298. 

366 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  58. 

derived  as  it  was  from  the  English  minieters  and  accepted  without  being  verified, 
inspired  but  little  confidence.  Hence  it  was  necessary  for  the  French  Government 
to  have  recourse  to  every  source  of  information  and  to  send  various  agents  to  Lon- 
don. Beaumarchais,  as  was  his  custom,  put  himself  forward;  ho  had  given  satis- 
faction by  the  skill  with  which  he  had  treated  the  affair  of  d'Eon's  papers,  which 
had  been  standing  over  several  years.  This  afiair,  not  being  yet  completelv  termi- 
nated, presented  a  natural  pretext  for  sending  him  to  London,  where  he  had  the 
advantage  of  being  intimnte  at  the  same  time  with  the  most  opposite  parties.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  ten  years  previously,  in  the  course  of  his  residence  in  .Spain,  he 
had  been  the  favorite  of  Lord  Rochford,  who  was  then  ambassador  at  Madrid  and  a 
great  musical  amateur.  Beaumarchais  used  to  sing  duets  with  him,  and  had  always 
kept  up  his  intimacy  with  him  as  much  as  possible.  Now  in  177.5  Lord  Rochford  hap- 
pened to  be  minister  of  foreign  affairs  in  Lord  North's  cabinet,  and  Lord  Rochford  was 
not  a  model  of  discretion,  to  judge  by  the  following  lines  which  I  extract  from  a  dis- 
patch wherein  M.  do  Vergenuescharacterizes  the  English  minister  with  his  prudent  and 
calm  manner:  '  If,'  he  writes,  '  the  idea  we  have  formed  of  Lord  Rochford  is  correct,  it 
can  not  be  difficult  to  make  him  say  more  than  he  intends.'  Beaumarchais,  in  fact, 
knew  very  easily  how  to  make  Lord  Rochford  speak  out.  It  is  true  that  this  minister 
was  replaced  at  the  end  of  1775,  but  ho  always  remained  a  very  influential  man,  living 
on  terms  of  intimacy  with  George  III,  and  consequently  well  worth  listening  to."* 

Doniol  (1886)^  unlike  those  of  his  predecessors  who  discuss  this  portion 
of  French  history,  does  not  pause  to  dilate  on  Beaumarchais'  personal 
characteristics.  To  him.Beaumarchais  is  a  political  agent,  distinguished 
first  for  his  shrewdness  in  picking  np  in  London  the  secrets  of  English 
policy,  and  afterwards  for  his  boldness  and  vivacity  in  presenting  to  the 
French  king  appeals  calculated  to  strengthen  the  views  of  intervention 
which  Vergennes  had  already  adopted.  Beaumarchais,  so  Doniol  says, 
was  able,  when  in  London  in  1775,  not  only  to  have  access  to  leading 
members  of  the  opposition,  but  through  his  intimacy  with  Lord  Roch- 
ford, whom  he  visited  as  an  old  convivial  friend,  to  gather  secret  details 
as  to  the  ministerial  policy.f  In  this  way,  according  to  Doniol,  the 
French  Government  succeeded,  through  Beaumarchais,  in  obtaining, 
presented  in  the  most  vivid  form,  information  of  the  inner  workings  of 
English  politics,  of  which  through  Guines,  the  resident  ambassador,  it 
learned  only  the  outer  appearances. 

Of  Beaumarchais  an  accomplished  American  writer  J  says: 

"He  was  the  greatest  dramatic  author  of  his  day,  in  the  sense  that  he  wrote  a  com- 
edy (Le  Mariage  de  Figaro),  which  did  more  to  open  men's  eyes  to  the  monstrous  evils 
of  the  government  under  which  they  lived  than  any  other  literary  work  of  the  time. 
He  was,  besides,  a  secret  diplomatic  agent,  employed  by  two  kings  of  France  in  nego- 
tiations of  the  utmost  delicacy,  which,  in  order  that  they  might  reach  a  successful 
issue,  required  that  absolute  confidenco  and  trust  should  be  placed  in  his  secrecy  and 
honor  (a  trust  which,  we  ought  to  say,  seems  never  to  have  been  misplaced).  He  was 
the  hero  of  many  lawsuits,  which,  owing  to  their  connection  with  the  general  poli- 
tics of  the  time  and  to  the  brilliant  way  ho  managed  them,  gave  him  a  European 
reputation ;  yet  he  had  been  condemned  by  the  parlement  de  Paris  to  an  infamous 
punishment  for  having  produced  in  one  of  these  lawsuits  a  receipt  or  discharge  of  a 

*  3  Lom^nie's  Beaumarchais  and  His  Times,  106,  English  translation. 

1 1  Doniol,  133. 

t  C.  J.  StilM,  LL.D.,  2  Penn.  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  1. 

367 


§  59.]  INTKODUCTION.  [CHAP.  JV. 

debt  wliich  that  court  had  pronouuced  supposititious ;  while  by  his  keen  satire  of 
existing  abuses  he  was  thought  by  not  a  few,  including  the  king,  to  be  really  under- 
mining the  foundations  of  the  throne  which  he  was  professing  to  serve.  To  many  he 
seems  only  a  vain,  ever  active,  unscrupulous  intriguer,  employing  without  hesitation 
lying  andmystitieation  whenever  necessary  to  accomplish  his  object,  which  is  assumed 
to  have  always  been  his  self-advancement  and  the  gratification  of  an  inordinate  van- 
ity for  making  himself  talked  of.  By  others  he  is  thought  chiefly  responsible  for  the 
success  of  two  revolutions — that  of  France,  by  holding  up  in  the  full  light  of  day 
before  the  average  Frenchman  monstrous  evils  which  had  never  before  been  so  vividly 
portrayed,  and  that  of  America,  by  the  energy  which  he  exhibited  in  supplying  us 
with  arms  and  clothing  for  an  army  of  twenty-five  thousand  men;  supplies  which, 
we  must  admit,  were  essential  to  our  military  success  against  Great  Britain.  In  France, 
in  the  highly  feverish  condition  of  things  which  existed  just  before  the  outbreak  of 
the  revolution,  he  was  undoubtedly  one  of  the  foremost  leaders  of  public  opinion, 
his  denunciation  of  practical  abuses,  which  every  one  recognized,  reaching  classes  of 
the  people  wholly  unaffected  by  the  humanitarian  doctrines  of  Diderot  and  Ronsseau; 
and  for  his  aid  to  America  in  the  hour  of  her  sorest  need,  whatever  may  have  been 
his  motive  or  however  questionable  maj'  have  been  some  of  his  proceedings,  we 
should  never  cease  to  be  profoundly  grateful.'^ 

Beaiimarcbais  as  a  secret  di-        §  59^  ^j^e  employment  in  tbis  mission  of  Beaii- 

plomatist.  ^  A       ^ 

marchais,  a  play-writer  and  a  man  of  by  no  means 
sedate  political  antecedents,  has  been  sometimes  regarded  as  showing 
something  like  levity  in  the  French  ministry  when  considering  so 
grave  a  question  as  that  of  alliance  w^ith  the  American  insurgents. 
But  play- writing  gifts  can  not  be  cited  as  a  bar  to  the  i)olitical  pro- 
motion of  Beaumarchais.  Oowley,  the  author  of  Love's  Riddle  and  of 
the  singularly  grotesque  Kaufragium  Joculare,  was  sent  by  Charles  I 
to  Paris  in  1646  as  secret  adviser  and  secretary  to  the  queen  at  that 
most  critical  era ;  Prior,  the  author  of  the  burlesque  City  Mouse  and 
Country  Mouse,  was  ambassador  at  Paris  in  1712  j  Sheridan,  who  was 
at  an  imj)0i't9'iit  crisis  confidential  adviser  of  the  Prince  of  Wales,  who 
took  part,  as  we  will  see,  in  the  di])lomatic  correspondence  i^receding  the 
preliminaries  of  1782,  and  who  surpassed  Beaumarchais  in  social  reck- 
lessness, was  the  author  of  the  School  lor  Scandal.  Burgoyne  was  the 
author  of  volumes  of  plays,  and  was  conspicuous,  long  before  he  took 
the  field  in  America  in  1777,  as  a  leading  theatrical  amateur.  Cumber- 
land, who  went  as  special  secret  envoy  to  Spain  in  1780,  and  whose  in- 
trigues when  there  so  much  puzzled  Carmichael  and  Jay,  was  at  his 
appointment  known  almost  exclusively  as  a  dramatist  of  singular  fecun- 
dity. If  Beaumarchais'  early  life  was  Bohemian,  and  his  early  writings 
were  sometimes  tawdry  and  deficient  in  taste,  the  same  may  be  said  of 
Disraeli.  But  of  Beaumarchais  it  may  certainly  be  said  that  whatever 
may  have  been  the  character  of  his  early  adventures  and  publications, 
he  brought  proof,  at  the  time  he  became  the  confidential  agent  of  the 
French  Government  in  1776,  of  the  most  consummate  skill  and  inde- 
fatigable energy  in  the  management  of  secret  diplomacy  in  the  various 
ramitications  it  then  assumed.  And  we  must  remember  that  nnder  the 
remarkable  system  inaugurated  by  Louis  XIV  and  carried  to  its  com-, 
368 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§§  60,  61. 

plete  development  by  Louis  XV,  it  was  by  secret  as  distiiij^uisiied  fioiii 
ostensible  diplomacy  that  the  politics  of  Europe  were  then  worked. 
The  secret  political  diplomatist  was  particularly  contrasted  with  the 
ostensible  diplomatist  in  this  :  That  while  the  latter,  who  had  little  dis- 
cretionary power,  exhibited  himself  in  but  one  attitude,  that  of  the 
stately  envoy  representing  his  sovereign  with  profuse  courtesy  to  the 
court  to  which  he  was  sent,  the  former,  the  secret  diplomatist,  was  from 
the  nature  of  things  iiroteau  in  his  character,  and  often,  if  not  hiding 
his  powers  under  the  guise  of  a  merchant,  using  a  merchant's  facilities 
as  the  means  by  which  these  powers  were  to  be  exercised.  It  is  for 
this  reason  that,  while  ostensible  diplomacy  was  prancing  without  ad- 
vancing, to  adopt  Tallyrand's  description,  secret  diplomacy,  at  least  in 
this  matter  of  approaches  to  America,  was  advancing  without  prancing. 
All  that  was  observed  of  French  diplomacy  in  England  was  the  parade 
courtesy  of  Guines,  the  avowed  ambassador.  That  which  operated 
effectively  was  the  private  information  collected  and  reported  by  Beau- 
marchais,  the  secret  diplomatist.* 

ReportB  as  to  America.  §  (]o.  It  was  to  Bcaumarchais,  according  to  Doniol,t 
that  the  acquiescence  of  Louis  XYI  in  Yergennes' 
policy  of  aid  to  the  colonists  was  due.  Two  months,  he  tells  us,  after 
his  departure  for  London,  at  the  end  of  November,  1775,  and  again  on 
January  1,  1776,  Beaumarchais  returned  to  Paris,  and  addressed  to  Yer- 
gennes  appeals  for  action  as  vigorous  as  they  were  vivid.  These  letters? 
with  a  detailed  report  now  not  to  be  found,  were  presented  by  Yergennes 
to  the  king  on  January  22,  1776,  and,  together  with  papers  coming  in 
at  the  same  time  showing  Guines'  Anglican  tendencies,  led  to  Guines' 
recall.  His  successor  was  to  be  Noailles,  who  was  not  to  leave  France 
for  six  months,  the  legation  remaining  in  the  mean  time  in  the  hands 
of  Garnier,  who  was  devoted  to  Yergennes.  It  was  on  the  information 
obtained  through  Beaumarchais,  however,  that  the  ministry  chiefly 
relied  in  discussing  the  question  of  its  duty  in  the  American  contest. 
But,  according  to  Doniol,  it  was  by  .his  memorial  entitled  La  Paix  ou 
la  Guerre,  addressed  ''  au  Roi  seul,"  that  Louis'  repugnance  to  inter- 
position was  overcome.  This  memorial  is  reprinted  by  Doniol,  and  no 
one  can  read  it  without  regarding  it  as,  for  its  purpose,  one  of  the 
most  powerful  political  papers  ever  i^repared. 

Roderique  Hortaiez  &  Co.  §  61.  The  Rodcrique  Hortalcz  scheme,  so  far  as 

sanctioned  by  the  French  ministry,  was  this :  A 
mercantile  house  (really  Beaumarchais,  nominally  Hortaiez  &  Go.)  was 
to  be  started  in  Paris,  for  the  purpose  of  "  selling"  to  the  Colonies  mili- 
tary supplies  which  France  cjDuld  not,  without  open  breach  of  neutral- 
ity, furnish  in  her  own  name.    To  encourage  this  enterprise  France 

*  As  to  Beaiimavcliais,  see  farther  7  Winsor's  Narratives,  etc.,  27.  1 1  Doniol,  251. 

24  WH  .  369 


§  61.~\  INTRODUCTION.  [cHAP.  IV. 

and  Spain  each  gave  to  the  ''mercantile  house ^'  one  million  of  francs, 
while  the  "  house  ^'  was  to  be  permitted  to  purchase  on  unlimited  credit 
military  stores  to  be  forwarded  to  Congress.*  On  the  face  of  this  trans- 
action there  was,  according  to  the  principles  of  international  law  now 
established,  no  breach  of  neutrality.  The  subjects  of  a  neutral  power 
have  the  right  (subject  to  the  chance  of  seizure  as  contraband)  to  sell 
to  a  belligerent  military  stores  without  involving  their  sovereign  in  a 
breach  of  neutrality  j  and  there  is  no  necessary  breach  of  neutrality 
involved  in  subsidies  being  granted  by  sovereigns  to  a  house  engaged 
in  the  mauufocture  or  purchase  of  such  stores,  provided  this  be  not  for 
the  purpose  of  taking  part  in  a  war  between  belligerents  with  whom 
such  sovereign  is  at  j)eace. 

It  was  to  establish  an  agency  by  which  supplies  could  be  forwarded 
to  America  under  the  above  limitations  that  the  genius  of  Beaumarchais 
was  next  turned. 

A  firm,  under  the  title  of  Eoderique  Hortalez  &  Co.,  was  to  be  organ- 
ized for  the  purpose  of  buying  and  selling  military  stores. 

The  Hotel  de  Holland,  which  was  selected  as  the  of&ce  of  the  firm, 
was  an  imposing  structure,  in  striking  contrasts  the  plain  and  unpreten- 
tious edifices  in  which  great  European  bankers  were  then  and  still  are 
accustomed  to  do  business.  The  Hotel  de  Holland  had  been  erected  by 
the  Dutch  Republic,  in  one  of  its  intervals  of  pacification  with  Louis 
XIV,  as  the  residence  of  their  minister  at  the  French  court  j  but  for 
many  years  it  had  remained  untenanted.  In  August,  1776,  however,  it 
displayed  the  name  of  "Eoderique  Hortalez  &  Co.,"  and  clerks  and  serv- 
ants who  occupied  it  declared  that  Eoderique  Hortalez  was  a  great 
Spanish  banker.  In  the  counting-room,  however,  he  could  never  be 
found ;  but  it  was  easy  to  find  Beaumarchais  there  whenever  a  confi- 
dential inquiry  was  made  or  a  confidential  direction  given.  His  secrecy 
in  prior  clandestine  employments  had  been,  it  was  supposed,  well  tested; 
and  it  may  have  been  naturally  inferred  that  to  Lord  Stormont  the 
very  employment  of  a  man  so  volatile  and  so  without  known  business 
experience  would  have  appeared  conclusive  of  the  political  unreality  of 
the  whole  enterprise. t 

*  As  to  the  question  of  international  law  involved,  see  infra,  ^  100  jf. ;  as  to  Ver- 
geunes'  "duplicity,"  see  supra,  $  52. 

t  See  2  Parton's  Franklin,  168  ff.,  for  an  entertaining  sketch  of  Beaumarchais  as  a 
merchant. 

" Beaumarchais,"  says  his  biographer  (Lom^nie),  ''was  told  that  the  operation 
must  essentially,  in  the  eyes  of  the  English  Government  and  even  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Americans,  have  the  appearance  of  an  individual  speculation,  to  which  the  French 
ministers  are  strangers.  That  it  may  be  so  in  appearance,  it  must  also  be  so  to  a 
certain  point  in  reality.  We  will  give  a  million  secretly;  we  Avill  try  to  induce  the 
court  of  Spain  to  unite  with  us  in  this  affair,  and  supply  you  on  its  side  with  an  equa? 
sum  ;  with  these  two  millions  and  the  co-operation  of  individuals  who  will  be  willing 
to  take  part  in  your  enterprise,  you  will  be  able  to  found  a  large  house  of  commerce, 
and  at  your  own  risk  can  supply  America  with  arms,  ammunition,  articles  of  equip_ 
ment,  and  all  other  articles  necessary  for  keeping  up  the  war.     Our  arsenals  will  give 

370 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF    FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  62. 

"^rbts^urp^Jnis^wtron        §  ^2.  As  to  wliethcr  the  supplies  received  by 
his  own  account.  Cougrcss  lioiii  Beaiimarcliais  were  sent  ou  Lis 

own  account  or  on  that  of  France,  Congress  had 
some  reason  to  be  in  doubt.  Arthur  Lee,  as  we  have  seen,  took  the 
ground  that  the  supplies  were  sent  gratuitously  by  France,*  while 

you  arms  and  ammiuiitiou,  but  you  shall  replace  tlieuior  shall  [>ay  for  them.  You  shall 
ask  for  uo  mouey  from  the  Americans,  as  they  have  none ;  but  you  shall  ask  them  for 
returns  in  products  of  their  soil,  and  we  will  help  you  to  get  rid  of  them  in  this  coun- 
try ;  while  you  shall  grant  them,  ou  your  side,  every  facility  possible.  In  a  word, 
the  operation,  after  being  secretly  supported  by  us  in  the  commencement,  must  after- 
wards feed  and  support  itself;  but,  on  the  other  side,  as  we  reserve  to  ourselves  the 
right  of  favoring  or  discouraging  it,  accordiug  to  the  requirements  of  our  policy,  you 
shall  render  us  an  account  of  your  profits  and  your  losses,  and  we  will  judge  whether 
we  are  to  accord  you  fresh  assistance  or  give  you  an  acquittal  for  the  sums  previously 
granted."  (3  Lom^nie's  Beaumarchais,  and  His  Times,  127.) 
In  Beamarchais'  memorial  to  Vergennes  of  February  29, 1776,  is  the  following : 
"If  it  be  replied  that  we  can  not  assist  the  Americans  without  wounding  England 
and  without  drawing  upon  us  the  storm  which  I  wish  to  keep  off,  I  reply  in  my  turn 
that  this  danger  will  not  be  incurred  if  the  plan  I  have  so  many  times  proposed  be 
followed — that  of  secretly  assisting  the  Americans  without  compromising  ourselves; 
imposing  upon  them,  as  a  first  condition,  that  they  shall  never  send  any  prizes  into  our 
ports  and  never  commit  any  act  which  shall  tend  to  divulge  the  secret  of  the  assist- 
ance, which  the  first  indiscretion  on  the  part  of  Congress  would  cause  it  instantly  to 
lose.  And  if  your  majesty  has  not  at  hand  a  more  clever  man  to  employ  in  the  mat- 
ter, I  undertake  and  answer  for  the  execution  of  the  treaty  without  any  one  being  com- 
promised, persuaded  that  my  zeal  will  supply  my  w^ant  of  talent  better  than  the  talent 
of  another  man  could  replace  my  zeal."  (3  Lora^nie's  Beaumarchais  and  His  Times, 
122.) 

The  correspondence  in  1776  between  Beaumarchais  and  Vergennes  is  given  in  full 
in2Doniol,  89/. 

Deane's  letter  of  December  2, 1776,  to  Aranda,  announcing  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, as  translated  by  Beaumarchais  and  then  forwarded  to  Vergennes,  is  given 
in  2  Doniol,  91. 
Of  the  results  of  Beaumarchais'  agency  Henri  Martin  thus  speaks: 
*'  The  personal  favor  of  Beaumarchais  wdth  Maurepas,  whose  senile  frivolity  he 
charmed,  did  more,  perhaps,  than  the  best  reasons  of  state.     A  million  livres  was 
secretly  given  to  Beaumarchais  to  establish  a  commercial  house  for  the  purpose  of 
supplying  America  with  arms,  munitions, -and  military  equipments.     [In  a  note  it  is 
said  :  "This  was  a  secret  even  to  the  Americans.     According  to  a  letter  from  M.  de 
Vergennes  to  the  king,  May  2,  1776  (see  7  Flassans,  149),  direct  pecuniary  assistance 
was  transmitted  to  Congress  under  cover  of  some  one  by  the  name  of  Montaudoin."] 
The  arsenals  were  to  be  open  to  this  house ;  but  it  was  bound  to  replace  or  to  pay  for 
the  articles  delivered  to  it.     The  Americans  were  to  repay  these  advances  in  produce, 
with  the  necessary  time  and  facilities.     (June,  1776)  Beaumarchais  obtained  a  second 
million  from  the  Spanish  Government  on  the  recommendation  of  the  cabinet  of  Ver- 
sailles, and  three  millions  more  from  the  ship-owners  with  whom  he  was  associated,  and 
launched  into  an  enterprise  in  which  the  lover  of  progress  and  the  sympathizer  blended 
strangely  in  him  with  the  speculator.     He  loved  everything— renown,  money,  phi- 
losophy, pleasure,  and  noise  above  all  else.     Other  commercial  houses  were  likewise 
assisted  with  money  for  the  same  purpose.     The  American  agent,  Silas  Deane,  who 
had  arrived  meanwhile  at  Paris,  was  officialhj  refused  the  two  hundred  cannon  and 
the  arms  and  equipments  for  twenty-five  thousand  men  which  he  solicited  from 
*  See,  however,  as  to  this  infra,  §  142. 

371 


§  62.]  INTRODUCTION.  [cHAP.  IV. 

Frankliu  and  Deane  insisted  that  Beaumarcbais  sold  them  on  his  own 
account,  as  would  any  other  priv^ate  merchant.  But,  aside  from  the 
authority  of  Arthur  Lee,  there  was  something  in  the  character  of  Beau- 
marchais  and  in  the  papers  he  sent  to  Congress  which  may  excuse  its 
members  from  suspecting  that  the  transaction  was  not  of  a  business 
type.    They  must,  for  instance,  have  looked  with  puzzled  eyes  on  the 

France,  but  was  semi-officially  referred  to  Beaumarcbais,  wbo  procured  everytbing, 
even  to  artillery  and  engineering  officers,  witb  tbe  cannon,  to  aid  tbe  Americans  in 
making  use  of  tbem.  Among  tbe  officers  of  different  arms  of  tbe  service  wbo  enlisted 
tbrougb  tbis  medium  are  remarked  tbe  names  of  Casimer  Pulaski,  tbe  Polisb  bero, 
and  La  Rouarie,  wbo  was  afterwards  tbe  first  organizer  of  tbe  counter-revolution- 
ary insurrection  of  La  Vendue."  (2  Martin's  Decline  of  Freucb  Monarcby,  37G,  Bootb's 
translation.) 

Mr.  Parton  estimates  tbat  Beaumarcbais,  witbin  twelve  montbs  from  tbe  beginning 
of  bis  duties,  '^  succeeded  in  dispatcbing  to  America  eigbt  sbip-loads  of  warlike 
stores,  valued  by  bimself  at  more  tban  six  million  of  francs.  Tbe  capital  \vbicb  en- 
abled him  to  achieve  tbis  great  result  was  composed,  first,  of  tbe  million  received 
from  tbe  French  treasury  in  June  1776  ;  secondly,  tbe  million  granted  by  tbe  Spanish 
Government,  which  Beaumarcbais  received  in  September  of  the  same  year;  thirdly, 
another  million  from  the  treasury  of  France  in  1777.  Tbe  stores  taken  from  tbe 
royal  arsenal  were  equivalent,  perbajis,  to  a  fourth  million,  and  the  rest  may  have 
been  furnished  by  friends  and  speculators."     (2  Partou's  Franklin,  1196.) 

"A  letter  from  M.  de  Vergennes  to  Louis  XVI,  a  letter  from  Louis  XVI  to  the  King 
of  Spain,  published  in  M.  do  Flassan's  Histoire  de  la  Diplomatie  Frangaise,  and  some 
other  documents  found  among  Beaumarcbais'  papers,  induce  me  to  think  tbat  dif- 
ferent merchants  did  in  fact  receive  subventions  like  Beaumarcbais,  and  for  the  same 
end."    (SLom^nie^s  Beaumarcbais  and  His  Times,  135.) 

The  correspondence  given  by  Lom^nie  shows  that,  to  state  Lom^nie's  conclusion, 
"  in  granting  secret  aid  to  the  commercial  company  founded  by  Beaumarcbais,  M.  de 
Vergennes  did  not  intend  that  the  operations  of  this  bouse  should  have  only  a  fictitious 
commercial  character.  It  proves,  in  fine,  tbat  there  was  an  intention  of  assisting 
several  real  merchants ;  it  also  proves  that  the  minister  thoughifc  the  enterprise  would 
support  itself  with  the  money,  and  tbat  it  would  be  kept  up  by  tbe  profits  resulting 
from  tbe  returns  in  kind,  on  which  Beaumarcbais  bad  a  right  to  count,  according  to 
the  formal  engagements  entered  into  by  the  agent  of  the  Congress."     (3  id.,  138^.) 

Tbat  other  funds  besides  those  of  tbe  government  were  given  to  "  Hortalez  &  Co." 
to  invest  in  produce  to  be  sent  to  tbe  United  States  appears  from  Beaumarcbais'  cor- 
respondence, as  given  by  Lom^nie,  and  the  character  of  those  investments  shows 
that  they  were  made  with  tbe  expectation  of  profits  which  no  doubt  Beaumarcbais 
exhibited  in  the  most  cheerful  lights.  Tbat  Beaumarcbais  paid  for  at  least  part  of 
the  supplies  obtained  from  the  French  arsenals  appears  from  a  letter  from  St.  Ger- 
main, secretary  of  war,  dated  August  25,  1776,  to  Vergennes,  as  cited  by  Lom^nie  : 

"This  company  [Hortalez  &  Co.  J  will  pay  in  ready  money  for  the  cannon  at  tbe  rate 
of  forty  sous  per  pound  of  metal;  the  cast-iron  at  tbe  rate  of  ninety  francs  per  thou, 
sand,  and  the  guns  at  twenty-three  francs.  In  case  it  should  ask  for  time,  it  would 
give  good  security."     (3  id.,  152,  164-172.) 

The  papers  published  by  Flassan,  Lom^uie,  and  Doniol  show  that  not  only  was  the 
house  of  "  Hortalez  &  Co."  a  business  agency  in  reality  as  well  as  in  appearace,  but 
tbat  other  merchants  received  "subventions"  for  tbe  same  purpose  of  selling  abroad 
on  easy  terms  munitions  of  war. 

"  I  have  before  me,"  says  Lom^nie,  "  a  general  catalogue  of  bis  affairs  from  the  Ist 

of  October,  1776,  until  the  30th  September,  1783;  that  is  to  say,  during  the  seven  years 

which  represent  more  particularly  his  commercial  career.      This  catalogue  shows  tbat 

money  passed  through  bis  bands  to  tbe  amount  of  21,044,191  livres  in  disbursements, 

372 


CHAP,  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  62. 

Hortalez  letter  of  AugUwSt  18,  1776,  given  hereafter  under  its  proper 
date.  We  may  now  think  that  Beaumarchais,  in  view  of  it  possibly 
falling  into  Biitisli  hands,  couched  it  in  terms  purposely  extravagant 
and  mystifying;  but  we  may  nevertheless  understand  why  Lomeiiie 
should  write  of  this  letter  as  follows : 

"Only  imagine  serious  Yankees,  who  had  nearly  all  been  traders  before  becoming 
soldiers,  receiving  masses  of  cargoes  which  were  frequently  embarked  by  stealth  dur- 

and  of  21,092,515  in  receipts ;  the  surplus,  then,  of  the  receipts  over  the  disburse- 
ments was  only  48,327  livres.  It  is  true  the  expenditure  relates  to  several  en- 
terprises which  at  a  later  period  would  bring  in  receipts;  but  the  slight  surplus  of 
expenditures  over  receipts  during  a  period  of  seven  years  is  sufficient,  it  appears  to 
me,  to  give  us  the  idea  of  a  merchant  who  was  rather  adventurous,  besides  being 
most  active  and  amusing.  We  have  seen  Beaumarchais  hitherto  mixing  together 
commerce  and  politics;  it  will  not,  perhaps,  be  disagreeable  to  view  him  simply  as 
a  merchant,  hurrying  from  one  port  to  another,  purchasing  or  constructing  vessels; 
*  curbing,'  as  he  said,  'his  various  captains,  so  as  to  obtain  a  little  profit  out  of  them,' 
and  discussing  naval  expenditures  with  all  the  daring  of  a  consummate  privateer.'' 
[3  Lom^nie's  Beaumarchais  and  His  Times,  227.) 

The  question  of  the  accuracy  of  Arthur  Lee's  statement  of  Beaumarchais'  engage- 
ments in  London  in  the  spring  of  1776  is  discussed  ivfra,  §  142. 

Of  Beaumarchais'  relations  to  Ueaue  and  Arthur  Lee  Lom^uie  thus  writes: 

**  When  Beaumarchais  returned  from  London  to  Paris  he  kept  up  a  correspondence 
with  Arthur  Lee  in  ciphers.  When  it  had  been  agreed  between  M.  de  Vergennes 
and  himself  that  the  affair  should  bear  a  strictly  private  and  commercial  character, 
and  that  the  partieipatiou  of  government  should  be  carefully  concealed  from  the 
Americans  themselves,  Beaumarchais,  in  conformance  with  ministerial  instructions, 
wrote  the  following  note  to  Arthur  Lee  in  London,  June  12,  1776 : 

''  '  The  difficulties  I  have  met  with  in  my  negotiations  with  the  ministry  have 
made  me  decide  to  form  a  company,  which  will  send  the  ammunition  and  powder  to 
your  friend  as  soon  as  possible,  in  consideration  of  tobacco  being  sent  in  return  to  the 
French  cape.' 

"Upon  this,  Silas  Deane,  the  American  agent,  sent  direct  to  France  by  the  Con- 
gress, arrived.  As  he  alone  was  furnished  by  the  Congress  with  power  to  treat  in 
their  name,  Beaumarchais  made  his  agreements  with  him,  and  did  not  write  again 
to  Arthur  Lee.  The  latter  had  relied  upon  this  affair  to  make  himself  popular  in 
America.  'He  hoped,'  says  the  author  of  the  Life  of  Franklin,  'to  play  the  prin- 
cipal part  in  the  enterprise.  On  hearing  that  it  was  passing  into  the  hands  of  Mr. 
Deane  he  hurried  to  Paris,  accused  Deane  of  interfering  in  his  affairs,  tried  to  cause 
a  quarrel  between  him  and  Beaumarchais,  and,  not  being  able  to  succeed,  returned 
to  London,  vexed  at  his  failure  and  furious  with  Deane.'  (Life  of  Franklin,  by 
Sparks,  449.)  To  this  very  exact  account  of  Mr.  Jared  Sparks  we  must  add  that  he 
was  not  less  furious  with  Beaumarchais  than  with  Deane.  In  order  to  avenge  him- 
self on  both,  he  wrote,  without  their  knowledge,  to  the  secret  committee  of  the 
Congress  that  the  two  had  agreed  to  deceive  both  the  French  Government  and  the 
United  States,  by  changing  what  the  ministry  meant  to  be  a  gratuitous  gift  into  a 
commercial  transaction.  It  was  this  insidious  story  of  Arthur  Lee's  which  caused 
all  the  trouble  between  Beaumarchais  and  the  Congress.  We  shall  soon  see  M.  de 
Vergennes  himself  speaking  very  pointedly  on  the  subject ;  but  as  his  official  answer, 
at  the  time  when  it  was  addressed  to  the  Congress,  might  be  looked  upon  as  dictated 
by  political  expediency,  we  ought,  in  exhibiting  the  arrangements  made  between  Silas 
Deane  and  Beaumarchais,  under  the  very  eyes  of  the  minister,  to  endeavor  to  discover 
the  real  intentions  of  the  latter  in  an  affair  about  which,  owing  to  its  very  secrecy, 
he  has  naturally  left  but  few  documents  in  his  own  handwriting."  (3  Lom^nia's 
Beaumarchais  and  His  Times,  136.) 

373 


$  62.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

ing  the  night  and  the  invoices  of  which  consequently  presented  some  irregularities, 
and  all  this  without  any  other  letters  of  advice  than  thf  rather  bombastic  missives 
signed  with  the  romantic  name  of  Roderlque  Hortalez  &  Co.,  in  which  Beaumarchais 
mixed  up  protestations  of  enthusiasm,  offers  of  unlimited  service,  and  political  advice 
with  applications  for  tobacco,  indigo,  or  salt  fish,  and  which  ended  with  tirades  of 
which  we  may  take  the  following  as  an  example : 

"  'Gentlemen,  consider  my  house  as  the  head  of  all  operations  useful  to  yonr  cause 
in  Europe,  and  myself  as  the  most  zealous  partisan  of  your  nation,  the  soul  of  your 
successes,  and  a  man  most  profoundly  filled  with  the  respectful  esteem  with  which  I 
have  the  honor  to  be,  etc., 

"  '  RoDERiQUE  Hortalez  &  Co.' 

"The  calculating  disposition  of  the  Yankees  naturally  inclined  them  to  think  that 
BO  ardent  and  fantastic  a  being,  if  after  all  such  a  being  really  existed,  was  playing 
a  commercial  comedy,  agreed  upon  between  the  French  Government  and  himself,  and 
that  they  might  in  all  security  of  conscience  make  use  of  his  supplies,  read  his  am- 
plifications, and  dispense  with  sending  him  tobacco."  (3  Lom^nie's  Beaumarchais 
and  His  Times,  163.) 

But  however  much  Congress  may  have  been  mystified  by  the  "  Horta 
lez  "  letters,  it  understood  from  Deane  that  for  the  supplies  it  received 
it  was  to  pay,  and  it  at  once  provided  for  consignments  to  France  of 
tobacco,  indigo,  and  other  American  produce.  These  consignments, 
however,  as  the  British  blockade  became  more  effective,  were  occasion- 
ally intercepted^  and  after  awhile,  in  the  uncertainty  as  to  whether  the 
whole  machinery  of  exchange  was  not,  as  Arther  Lee  announced,  a  mere 
pretext  ior  the  maintenance  of  nominal  neutrality,  the  attempt  to  make 
them  seemed  almost  given  up.  Upon  this  Beaumarchais  sent  over, 
as  a  business  agent,  to  insist  on  remittances,  Francy,*  a  young  man 
of  great  merit,  who  informed  Congress,  according  to  Lomenie,  "that 
his  patron  would  not  send  anything  more  unless  thej^  acknowledged 
his  previous  claims  and  guarantied  him  by  a  formal  contract  from  all 
difiBculty  for  the  future."  A  contract  to  this  effect  was  signed  on  April 
6,  1778,  by  the  members  of  the  congressional  committee  of  commerce, 
and  Francy,  acting  in  the  name  of  Beaumarchais  5  but  this  contract,  by 
its  terms,  was  not  to  be  ratified  until  the  French  minister  of  foreign 
affairs  gave  an  answer  to  the  question  whether  Beaumarchais  or  the 
French  Government  was  the  creditor  of  the  Congress  for  cargoes  to  the 
amount  of  five  millions  already  sent,  or  whether,  to  take  a  third  alter- 
native, these  supplies  were  sent  gratuitously  by  France.  To  this  inquiry 
Vergennes  replied  as  follows  in  a  note  addressed  to  Gerard,  the  French 
minister  in  the  United  States,  who  was  ordered  to  transmit  it  to  tha 
Congress : 

"The  commissioners  of  the  Congress  have  just  addressed  to  me  an  official  letter 
which  refers  to  two  objects;  the  first  relates  to  the  correctness  of  the  account  of  M.  do 
Beaumarchais,  under  the  name  of  the  firm  Roderique  Hortalez  &  Co. ;  the  second  to 
the  ratification  of  the  contract  which  the  Congress,  or  rather  the  committee  of  com- 
merce in  its  name,  has  signe  1  with  M.  Th^veneau  de  Francy,  agent  of  M.  Caron  de 
Beaumarchais.     M.  Franklin  and  his  colleagues  desire  to  know  the  articles  that  have 


*  See  infra,  ^  73,  and  index,  title  Francy. 

374 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  63. 

■been  supplied  to  tbeiii  by  the  king  and  those  that  M.  do  Beaumarchais  has  supplied 
them  with  on  his  own  account;  and  they  insinuate  that  the  Congress  is  convinced 
that  all,  or  at  least  the  greater  part  of  what  has  been  sent,  is  on  accouufe  of  his  maj- 
esty. I  have  replied  to  them  that  the  king  did  not  furnish  them  with  anything ;  that 
he  simply  allowed  M.  de  Beaumarchais  to  supply  himself  from  his  arsenals  under  an 
engagement  to  replace  what  he  took ;  and,  moreover,  that  I  would  with  pleasure  inter- 
est myself  to  prevent  their  being  too  much  pressed  for  the  repayment  of  the  military 
articles." 

** '  As  to  what  related  to  the  fresh  contract  signed  between  Beaumarchais  and  the 
Congress,'  the  minister  added  that  'he  had  no  advice  to  give  as  to  the  ratification  of 
this  agreement,  not  being  called  on  to  answer  for  the  engagements  of  the  house  of 
Roderique  Hortalez  &  Co.' 

"In  this  answer  of  M.  de  Vergennes,  which  was  very  explicit  concerning  the  rights 
of  Beaumarchais  as  creditor  of  the  Congress,  there  were  two  points,"  continues  Lo- 
m6nie:  ''There  was  n  suppression  dictated  by  policy,  and  which  consisted  in  passing 
over  in  silence  the  pecuniary  aid  granted  to  Beaumarchais  before  the  rupture  between 
France  and  England,  and  at  the  came  time  the  truth  which  was  allowed  to  appear  in 
the  minister's  last  sentence  in  reference  to  the  military  articles  supplied.  This  sen- 
tence jiroves  that,  if  Beaumarchais  had  received  pecuniary  aid,  he  had  not  had  it  to 
enable  him  to  send  gratuitously,  but  to  send  on  credit,  leaving  to  the  debtors  rather 
a  considerable  latitude,  especially  as  to  the  munitions  of  war.  Besides,  it  is  evident 
that  Beaumarchais  conformed  to  ministerial  instructions,  for  during  two  years,  except- 
ing two  cargoes  of  150,000  francs  each,  of  which  he  had  been  obliged  to  take  posses- 
sion by  authority,  he  had  not  been  ablo  to  obtain  a  liard  for  iive  millions  of  military 
and  other  stores,  and  when  he  applied  for  payment  on  account,  the  Americans  replied 
to  him  by  denying  the  debt  or  did  not  reply  at  all."  (3  Lora^nie's  Beaumarchais  and 
His  Times, '200.) 

A  letter  from  Beaumarchais  to  Deane,  of  date  of  July  22,  1776,  is 
given  by  Lomenie,  in  which,  after  agreeing  to  the  payment  in  natural 
products  and  to  the  delay  demanded  by  the  agent  of  the  Congress,  he 
(Beaumarchais)  speaks  as  follows  about  the  price  of  the  supplies: 

"As  I  believe  that  I  am  to  deal  with  a  virtuous  nation,  it  will  be  enough  for  me  to 
keep  an  exact  account  of  all  I  advance.  The  Congress  will  be  at  liberty  to  pay  the 
usual  value  of  the  things  on  their  arrival,  or  to  allow  so  much  for  the  cost  i)rice,  the 
delays,  and  the  inconvenience,  with  a  commission  in  proportion  to  the  trouble  and 
care,  which  it  is  impossible  to  arrange  now.  I  wish  to  serve  your  country  as  if  it  were 
my  own,  and  I  hope  to  find  in  the  friendship  of  a  noble-minded  nation  the  true  reward 
of  the  labor  which  I  willingly  undertake-,for  them."     (2  id.,  147.) 

^Sent  """"sressionai  settle-        §  Q^   A  partial  Settlement  was  then  entered 

into,  which  is  noticed  in  the  following  entry  in 
the  secret  journal  of  Congress: 

''June  18,  1779. — The  committee  on  the  treasury  report  'that  they  have,  according 
to  order,  prepared  bills  of  exchange  on  the  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United 
States  at  the  court  of  Versailles  in  favor  of  Caron  de  Beaumarchais,  consisting  of 
fifty  setts,  six  bil^s  to  each  set,  as  specified  in  a  schedule  annexed,  all  dated  the  15 
day  of  this  instant  June,  amounting  in  the  whole  to  two  millions  four  hundred  thou- 
sand livres  Tournois,  and  payable  the  15  day  of  June,  1782,  and  also  six  setts,  six 
bills  to  each  sett,  all  dated  the  same  day,  drawn  on  the  said  minister  in  favour  of  the 
said  Caron  de  Beaumarchais,  for  the  yearly  interest  of  the  said  principal  sum  at  six 
per  cent  per  an :  being  one  hundred  and  forty  four  thousand  livres  yearly;  in  the 
whole  432,000  livres  (the  principal  and  interest  so  drawn  for  amounting  in  the  whole 

375 


§§  G4,  65.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

to  9,823,000  livres),  whieli  last  mentioned  bills  for  tlie  interest  are  particularly  speci- 
fied in  the  said  schedule ;  and  that  they  have  also  prepared  letters  of  advice  of  the 
said  bills  of  exchange  to  the  said  minister  plenipotentiary  ;'  whereupon 

"Besolved,  That  the  said  draughts  be  signed  by  the  President  of  Congress  and  en- 
tered in  the  auditor's  office  as  warrants  are  usually  passed  and  then  delivered  to  M. 
de  Francy,  agent  for  the  said  C.  de  Beaumarchais,  on  his  giving  the  auditor-general 
a  receipt  for  the  same  ;  and  that  M.  de  Beaumarchais  be  charged  with  the  amount  of 
the  said  principal  sum,  in  the  books  of  the  treasury. 

'^ Resolved,  That  the  faith  of  the  United  States  be  pledged  to  make  good  any  con- 
tract or  engagement  which  shall  be  entered  into  by  the  said  minister  plenipotentiary 
0¥  any  future  minister  of  these  United  States  at  the  court  of  Versailles  for  obtaining 
money  or  credit  to  enable  him  to  honor  the  said  draughts,  and  provide  for  their  punct- 
ual discharge. 

^^Oi'dered,  That  copies  of  the  foregoing  resolutions  and  that  of  the  5  instant  and  of 
the  letters  of  advice  subscribed  by  the  president  be  transmitted  by  the  committee  for 
foreign  affairs  to  the  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  at  the  court  of 
Versailles. 

Contract  of  February  25, 1783,        X  04.  Od  February  2o,  1783,  was  concluded, 

reciting  French  advances.  •'  ^  i  y  ? 

between  Franklin  and  Vergennes,  a  "contract" 
which,  among  other  things,  contained  the  following :  * 

"A.RTICLE  2. — For  better  understanding  the  fixing  the  periods  for  the  re-imburse- 
ment  of  the  six  millions  at  the  royal  treasury,  and  to  prevent  all  ambiguity  on  this 
head,  it  has  been  found  proper  to  recapitulate  here  the  amount  of  the  preceding 
aids,  granted  by  the  king  to  the  United  States,  and  to  distinguish  them  according  to 
their  different  classes : 

''In  the  third  class  are  comprehended  the  aids  and  subsidies  furnished  to  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States,  under  the  title  of  gratuitous  assistance  from  the  pure 
generosity  of  the  king ;  three  millions  of  which  were  granted  before  the  treaty  of 
February,  1778,  and  six  millions  in  1781,  which  aids  and  subsidies  amount  in  the  whole 
to  nine  millions  livres  tournois.  His  majesty  here  confirms,  in  case  of  need,  the  gra- 
tuitous gift  to  the  Congress  of  the  said  Thirteen  United  States." 

The  "io9t  million;"  Frank-        ^  65.  Here  was  a  rccital  of  the  receii)t  of  three 

lin's  efforts  at  explanation. 

millions  of  gratuity  before  1778,  whereas  Frank- 
lin's accounts  showed  the  receipt  of  only  ttvo  millions.  What  became 
of  the  ''  lost  million,"  as  it  was  called? 

When  Franklin  returned  to  Philadelphia,  and  it  became  necessary, 
for  the  settlement  of  his  accounts,  as  well  as  of  those  of  Beaumar- 
chais, to  discover  in  what  way  this  third  million  had  reached  the  United 
States  the  following  correspondence  took  place : 

Franklin  to  Grand,  hanlcer,  at  Paris  t 

''Philadelphia,  July  11//*,  1786. 
''  Sir:  I  send  you  enclosed  some  letters  that  have  passed  between  the  secretary  of 
Congress  and  me,  respecting  three  millions  of  livres  acknowledged  to  have  been 
received  before  the  treaty  of  February,  1778,  as  don  gratuit  from  the  king,  of  which 
only  two  millions  are  found  in  your  accounts,  unless  the  million  from  the  Farmers- 
General  be  one  of  the  three.     I  have  been  assured  that  all  the  money  received  from 

*  House  Doc.  No.  Ill,  l.oth  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  vol.  5,  App. ;  Rep.  No.  220,  H.  K.,  20th 
Cong.,  1st  sess.,  Apr.  1,  1823,  p.  50. 
12  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  525. 

376 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  65. 

the  king,  whether  as  h)an  or  gift,  went  through  your  liands  ;  and  as  I  always  looked 
on  the  million  wo  had  of  the  Farmers-General  to  he  distinct  from  what  we  had  of  the 
crown,  I  wonder  how  1  came  to  sign  the  contract  acknowledging  three  millions  of 
gift,  when  in  reality  there  was  only  two,  exclusive  of  that  from  the  Farmers ;  and, 
as  both  you  and  I  examined  the  project  of  the  contract  before  I  signed  it,  I  am  sur- 
prised that  neither  of  us  took  notice  of  the  error. 

''  It  is  possible  that  the  million  furnished  ostensibly  by  the  Farmers  was  in  fact  a 
gift  of  the  crown,  in  which  case,  as  Mr.  Thomson  observes,  they  owe  us  for  the  two 
ship  loads  of  tobacco  which  they  received  on  account  of  it.  I  must  earnestly  request 
of  you  to  get  this  matter  explained,  that  it  may  stand  clear  before  I  die,  lest  some 
enemy  should  afterwards  accuse  me  of  having  received  a  million  not  accounted  for. 

''  I  am,  &c., 

"B.  Franklin." 


Durival  to  Grand. 

[Translation.! 

''Versailles,  Angui^t  30</i,  1786. 

"Sir  :  I  have  received  the  letter  which  yon  did  me  the  honor  to  write  on  the  28th 
of  this  mouth  touching  the  advance  of  a  million  which  yon  say  was  made  by  the 
Farmers-General  to  the  United  States  of  America  the  3d  of  June,  1777.  I  have  no 
knowedge  of  that  advance.  What  I  have  verified  is,  that  the  king,  by  the  contract 
of  the  25th  of  February,  1783,  has  confirmed  the  gratuitous  gift,  which  his  majesty 
had  previously  made,  of  the  three  millions  hereafter  mentioned,  viz,  one  million 
delivered  by  the  royal  treasury  the  lOtli  of  June,  1776,  and  two  other  millions  ad- 
vanced also  by  the  royal  treasury  in  1777,  on  four  receipts  of  the  deputies  of  Con- 
gress, of  the  17th  of  January,  3d  of  April,  10th  of  June,  and  15tli  of  October,  of  the 
same  year.  This  explanation  will,  sir,  I  hope,  resolve  your  doubt  touching  th«  ad- 
vance of  the  3d  of  June,  1777.  I  further  recommend  to  you,  sir,  to  confer  on  this 
subject  with  M.  Gojard,  who  ought  to  be  better  informed  than  we,  who  had  no  knowl- 
edge of  any  advances  but  those  made  by  the  royal  treasury. 

*'I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

"Durival." 


Durival  to  GrandA 
[Translation.! 

"Versailles,  September  HZ/j,  1786. 
"Sir:  I  laid  before  the  Count  de  Vergennes  the  two  letters  which  you  did  me  the 
honor  to  write  touching  the  three  millions,  the  free  gift  of  which  the  king  has  con- 
firmed in  favor  of  the  United  States  of  America.  The  minister,  sir,  observed  that 
this  gift  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  million  which  the  Congress  may  have  received 
from  the  Farmers- General  in  1777;  consequently  he  thinks  that  the  receipt  which  you 
desire  may  be  communicated  to  you  can  not  satisfj'^  the  object  of  your  view,  and  that 
it  would  be  useless  to  give  you  the  copy  which  you  desire. 

"I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  perfect  attachment,  &c., 

"Durival." 


Grand  to  Franklin.^ 

"Paris,  Septemher  9th,  1786. 
"  My  Dear  Sir  :  The  letter  you  honored  me  with  covered  the  copies  of  three  letters 
which  Mr.  Thomson  wrote  you  to   obtain  an  explanation  of  a  million  which  is  not 

*  2  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  526.  t2  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  526. 

377 


§  65.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

to  be  found  in  my  accounts.  I  sliould  liave  been  very  niucli  embarrassed  in  satisfying 
and  proving-  to  him  that  I  had  not  put  that  million  in  my  pocket  had  I  not  applied 
to  M.  Dnrival,  who,  as  yon  will  see  by  the  answer  ettclosed,  informs  me  that  there 
was  a  million  paid  by  the  royal  treasury  on  the  10th  of  June,  1776.  This  is  the  very 
million  about  which  Mr.  Thomson  inquires,  as  I  liave  kept  an  account  of  the  other 
two  jnillions,  which  were  also  furnisljed  by  the  royal  treasury,  viz,  the  one  million  in 
January  and  April,  1777,  the  other  in  July  and  October  of  the  same  year,  as  well  as 
that  furnished  by  the  Farmers-General  in  June,  1777. 

"  Here,  then,  are  the  three  millions  exactly  which  were  given  by  the  king  before  the 
treaty  of  1778  and  that  furnished  by  the  Farmers-General.  Nothing,  then,  remains 
to  be  known  but  who  received  the  first  million  in  June,  1776.  It  could  not  be  my- 
self, as  I  was  not  charged  vv^ith  the  business  of  Congress  until  January,  1777.  I 
therefore  requested  of  M.  Dnrival  a  copy  of  the  receipt  for  the  one  million.  You  have 
the  answer  which  he  returned  to  me.  I  wrote  to  him  again,  renewing  my  request, 
but  as  the  courier  is  just  setting  off  I  can  not  wait  to  give  you  his  answer,  but  you 
will  receive  it  in  my  next,  if  I  obtain  one. 

^'  In  the  meanwhile  I  beg  you  will  receive  the  assurances  of  the  sentiments  of  respect 
with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be,»my  dear  sir,  &c., 

''Grand." 


Ihirival  io  Grand.* 

[Translation.] 

"Versailles,  September  lOth,  1780. 
*'  Sir  :  I  have  laid  before  the  Count  de  Vergennes,  as  you  seemed  to  desire,  the  letter 
which  you  did  nae  the  honor  to  write  yesterday.  The  minister  persists  in  the  opinion 
that  the  receipt,  the  copy  of  which  you  request,  has  no  relation  to  the  business  with 
which  you  were  intrusted  on  behalf  of  Congress,  and  th^t  this  piece  would  be  useless 
in  the  new  point  of  view  in  which  you  have  placed  it.  Indeed,  sir,  it  is  easy  for  you 
to  prove  that  the  money  in  question  was  not  delivered  by  the  royal  treasury  into  your 
hands,  as  you  did  not  begin  to  be  charged  with  the  business  of  Congress  until  Janu- 
ary, 1777,  and  the  receipt  for  that  money  is  of  the  10th  of  June,  1776. 
''  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  perfect  attachment,  sir,  &c., 

"  DUKIVAL." 

It  appeared  on  all  the  papers  that  tlie  "lost:  million"  did  not  in  any 
shape  pass  into  Franklin's  hands.f 

Franhlin  to  Charles  Thomson.t 

''Philadelphia,  January  271]i,  1787. 
"Dear  Friend:  You  may  remember  that  in  the  correspondence  between  us  in 
June  last  on  the  subject  of  a  million  free  gift  of  the  king  of  France,  acknowledged 
in  our  contract  to  have  been  received  but  which  did  not  appear  to  be  accounted  for 
in  our  banker's  accounts,  unless  it  should  be  the  same  with  the  million  said  to  be  re- 
ceived from  the  Farmers-General,  I  mentioned  that  an  explanation  might  doubtless 
be  easily  obtained  by  writing  to  Mr.  Grand  or  Mr.  Jefferson.  I  know  not  whether 
you  have  accordingly  written  to  either  of  them  ;  but  being  desirous  that  the  matter 
should  speedily  be  cleared  up,  I  wrote  myself  to  Mr.  Grand  a  letter  upon  it,  of  which 
I  now  inclose  a  copy,  with  his  answers,  and  several  letters  from  M.  Durival,  who  is 
chef  de  bureau  desfonds  (and  has  under  his  care  the  finance)  des  affaues  etrangeres. 

*  2  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  527. 

^  Infra,  $  113;  see  supra,  $  52;  infra,  $  142. 

t  2  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  529.  with  verbal  changes. 

378 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  Q6. 

''You  will  see  by  these  letters  that  the  million  in  question  was  delivered  to  somebody 
on  the  10th  of  June,  177(),  but  it  does  not  appear  to  whom.  It  is  clear,  however,  that 
it  could  not  be  to  Mr.  Grand  nor  to  the  commissioners  from  Congress,  lor  we  did  not 
meet  in  France  till  the  end  of  December,  1776,  or  beginning  of  January,  1777,  and 
that  banker  was  not  charged  before  with  our  affairs. 

"By  the  minister's  reserve  in  refusing  him  a  copy  of  the  receipt  I  conjecture  it  must 
be  money  advanced  for  our  use  to  M.  de  Beaumarchais,  and  that  it  is  a  mysiere  du  cabinet 
which  perhaps  shonld  not  be  furtherinquiied  into,  unless  necessary  to  guard  against 
more  demands  than  may  be  just  from  that  agent,  for  it  may  well  bo  supposed  that  if 
the  court  furnished  him  with  the  means  of  supplying  us,  they  may  not  ho  willing  to 
furnish  authentic  proofs  of  such  a  transaction  so  early  in  our  dispTite  with  Britain. 
Pray  tell  me,  has  he  dropped  his  demands,  or  does  he  still  continue  to  worry  you  with 
them  ? 

"  I  should  like  to  have  these  original  letters  returned  to  me,  but  you  may,  if  you 
please,  keep  copies  of  them.  It  is  true  the  million  in  question  makes  no  difference  in 
your  accounts  with  the  king  of  France,  it  not  being  mentioned  or  charged  as  so  much 
lent  and  to  be  repaid,  but  stated  as  freely  given.  Yet,  if  it  was  put  into  the  hands 
of  any  of  your  agents  or  ministers,  they  ought  certainly  to  account  for  it.  I  do  not 
recollect  whether  Mr.  Deane  had  arrived  before  the  10th  of  June,  1770  j*  but  from 
his  great  want  of  money  when  I  joined  him  a  few  months  after  I  hardly  think  it  could 
have  been  paid  to  him.  Possibly  Mr.  Jt-lf^rson  may  obtain  the  information,  thangh 
Mr.  Grand  could  not,  and  I  wish  he  may  be  directed  to  make  the  inquiry,  as  I  know 
he  would  do  it  discreetly ;  I  mean  if  by  Hortalez  &  Co.'s  further  demands,  or  for 
any  other  reason,  such  an  inquiry  should  be  thought  necessary. t 
"  I  am,  &c., 

"B,  Franklin." 

^toexpiain.^'*'"''^  ministry        §  QQ^  The  receipt  of  tlie   lOtli  of  June,  1776, 

was,  as  was  subseqiieutly  disclosed,  signed  by 
Beaumarchais.  According  to  Lomenie  (3,  'iO )),  Grand,  who  was  then  and 
had  been  for  some  time  banker  for  the  United  States,  having  inquired 
of  Durival,  who  was  at  the  head  of  the  treasury,  for  a  copy  of  the  re- 
ceipt given  June  10,  1776,  Durival  "consulted  (continues  Lomenie)  M. 
de  Yergennes,  and  replied  at  first  by  a  refusal.  The  banker  insisted 
afresh,  alleging  his  own  responsibility.  M.  Durival  then  addressed  to 
the  minister  a  secret  report  as  to  the  question  whether  it  was  desir- 
able to  supply  M.  Grand  with  the  copy  he  asked  for  of  M.  de  Beaumar- 
chais' receipt.  After  having  stated  that,  according  to  the  receipt,  M.  de 
Beaumarchais  was  to  render  an  account  to  M.  do  Vergennes  only,  the 
chief  of  the  bureau  of  funds  concluded  thus :  ^  There  might  be  an  objec- 
tion to  furnishing  a  weapon  against  M.  de  Beaumarchais  by  showing  to 
M.  Grand  the  copy  he  asks  for  of  the  acknowledgment  for  the  million 
delivered  June  10,  1776.'" 

In  the  margin  of  the  report  there  is  written,  "Referred  September  5, 
1786,"  and  below,  on  the  margin  also,  is  found  the  decision  of  M.  de 

*'  Deane  did  not  arrive  in  Paris  till  the  first  week  in  July.  (Sparks.) 
tThis  matter  was  not  cleared  up  till  1794,  when  Gouverneur  Morris  was  American 
minister  in  Paris.  By  application  to  the  government  he  procured  a  copy  of  the  receipt 
of  the  person  who  received  the  million  of  francs  on  the  10th  of  June,  1776.  It  proved 
to  be  Beaumarchais,  as  Dr.  Franklin  had  conjectured.  (See  Pitkin's  History  of  the 
United  States,  vol.  1,  p.  42-2,  Sparks,  and  see  more  fully  infra,  $  68.) 

379 


§  66.1  INTRODUCTION.  [CHA1\ 

Yergeiiues  thus  expressed:  'There  can  be  no  reason  for  the  acknowl 
edgment  mentioned  in  this  report."    This  was  followed  by  Durival'a 
letter  to  Grand  of  September  10,  1786,  above  given. 
Grand  then  summed  up  the  position  as  follows : 

Grand  to  Franldin* 

[Translation] 

''Paris,  September  12ih,  1786. 
"  Sir  :  I  hazard  a  letter,  iu  hopes  ifc  may  be  able  to  join  that  of  the  9th  at  L'Orient, 
in  order  to  forward  to  you  the  answer  I  have  just  received  from  M.  Durival. 
You  will  there  see  that,  notwithstanding  my  entreaty,  the  uiinister  himself  refuses  to 
give  me  a  copy  of  the  receipt  which  I  asked  for.  I  can  not  conceive  the  reason  for 
this  reserve,  more  especially  since,  if  there  has  been  a  million  paid,  he  who  has 
received  it  has  kept  the  account,  and  it  must  in  time  be  known.  I  shall  hear  with 
pleasure  that  you  have  been  more  fortunate  in  this  respect  in  America  than  I  have 
been  in  France. 

"And  I  repeat  to  you  the  assurance  of  the  sentiments  of  regard  with  which 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

"Grand." 

"By  this  refusal  of  the  minister  to  Congress,"  argues  Lomdnie,  "it 
believed  itself  sufficiently  authorized  to  conclude,  first,  that  it  was 
Beaumarchais  who  had  received  this  million  ;  secondly,  that  this  million 
ought  to  be  restored  by  him  to  the  Congress ;  thirdly,  that  the  Congress 
ought  not  to  pay  anything  until  this  mystery  was  cleared  up.  All  these 
conclusions  were  not  equally  just,  for  there  was  no  question  here,  as  in  the 
declaration  of  the  minister  in  1778,  of  a  concealment  dictated  by  policy. 
The  French  Government  no  longer  concealed  the  fact  that  it  had 
assisted  the  insurgent  Colonies  before  their  rupture  with  England,  for 
it  declared  formally  that  it  had  given  three  millions  with  that  view 
before  the  treaty  of  1778,  and  went  even  so  far  as  to  fix  the  date  of  the 
first  million,  delivered  June  10,  1776.  If  it  refused  to  unveil  to  the 
United  States  the  name  of  the  man  to  whom  it  had  advanced  this  mill- 
ion, it  was  no  longer  from  considerations  of  political  prudence,  but 
from  a  motive  of  personal  equity  towards  Beaumarchais,  '  not  to  furnish 
the  Americans  a  weapon  against  him,'  as  M.  Durival  plainly  stated  in  his 
report  to  the  minister.  By  this  refusal  to  communicate  to  the  United 
States  Beaumarchais'  receipt  the  minister  said  to  them  explicitly,  '  I 
have  classed  this  first  million  in  the  contract  of  February  25,  1783, 
amongst  the  millions  given  gratuitously  by  me  for  your  service,  because 
it  was  in  fact  given  by  mej  but  as  it  has  not  been  given  to  you,  as  the 
man  to  whom  I  gave  it  has  bound  himself  by  his  receipt  to  render  an 
account  to  me  and  not  to  you,  this  man  can  be  accountable  to  me  alone. 
If  I  asked  you  for  the  repayment  of  this  million,  you  would  on  your  part 
have  the  right  to  claim  it  from  the  person  who  received  it  j  but  as  I  ask 
you  for  nothing,  it  is  for  me  only  to  decide  how  far  this  gratuitous  ad- 

^  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  528. 
380 


CHAP.  IV.]         ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§§  67,  68. 

vance  of  a  million  made  by  me  on  your  beluilf  is  to  be  serviceable  to 
you,  or  to  the  man  to  whom  1  made  it,  in  order  to  forward  a  secret 
operation  which  has  been  very  serviceable  to  you,  but  which  hitherto, 
from  your  refusal  to  pay  and  from  the  various  losses  he  has  suffered  in 
his  trade  with  you,  appears  to  have  been  more  injurious  than  profitable 
to  him.'"* 

To  this  supposed  appeal  Lomenie  adds  the  remark  that  Beaumarchais 
was  not  a  party  to  or  even  cognizant  of  the  agreement  and  recital  of 
1783,  and  consequently  could  not  in  any  way  be  bound  by  it. 

^S^eSof  Junril.nsT.''        §  ^^-  J^eaumarchais,  becoming  embarrassed  in 

his  affairs,  and  attributing,  not  unnaturally,  i:-is 
difficulties  to  the  delay  in  the  final  settlement  of  his  American  accouiiis, 
addressed  to  Congress,  on  June  12,  1787,  a  vehement  appeal  for  relief.t 
In  response.  Congress  passed  a  resolution  referring  the  accounts  for 
settlement  to  Arthur  Lee,  and  it  is  impossible  to  excuse  this  reference 
except  on  the  ground  that  it  was  forgotten,  at  least  by  most  of  those 
who  consented  to  this  reference,  that  it  was  Arthur  Lee  who,  alone  among 
those  in  any  way  cognizant  with  the  Beaumarchais  negotiations,  had 
declared  that  Beaumarchais  was  merely  the  agent  for  conveying  gratui- 
ties to  the  United  States ;  that  the  fact  of  such  gratuities  never  had  been 
explicitly  denied  b}^  Beaumarchais,  by  Deaue,  by  Vergenues,  and  by 
the  French  minister  in  Philadelphia  with  the  acquiesence  of  Congress, 
and  that,  aside  from  the  fact  that  Arthur  Lee  had  thus  prejudged  the 
main  question  at  issue,  his  relations  with  Beauinarchais,  in  consequence 
in  part  of  this  very  prejudgment,  had  become  very  bitter,  each  of  them 
having  lavished  on  the  other  the  denunciations  which  on  the  one  side 
had  all  the  vehemence  of  Junius  Americauus,  and  on  the  other  side  all 
the  wit  of  the  author  of  the  Marriage  of  Figaro.  Arthur  Lee,  assum-^ 
ing,  as  his  prior  declarations  bound  him  to  do,  that  the  subsidies  given 
to  Hortalez  &  Co.  were  gratuities  to  the  United  States,  had  no  difficulty 
in  finding,  not  that  the  United  States  were  indebted  to  Beaumarchais, 
but  that  Beaumarchais  was  indebted  to  the  United  States  in  the  sum 
of  1,800,000  francs.  But  it  was  clear  that  such  an  award  could  not  be 
sustained;  and  in  1793,  the  accounts  being  referred  to  Hamilton,  then 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  he  reported  that  the  United  States  were 
indebted  to  Beaumarchais  in  the  sum  of  2,280,000  francs,  proposing, 
however,  that  there  should  be  another  appeal  for  information  to  the 
French  Government,  of  which,  under  the  revolutionary  regime,  Buchot 
was  then  secretary  for  foreign  affairs. 

French  admission.  §  (jg,  Gouvomeur  Morris  was  then  American  min- 

ister at  Paris,  and  to  his  adroit  application  to  the 
French  ministry  for  further  explanations  the  following  was  received  : 

*  3  Loradnie,  2U.  t  Lom^nio,  ut  supra,  263. 

381 


§  68.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

[Translation.]* 
**At  Paris,  19th  Messidor,  of  the  2d  year  of  the  republic,  one  and  indivisible. 

"liberty,    equality,    FRATEENITY,    OK   DEATH. 

"The  commissary  of  exterior  relations  to  the  ministtr  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  Stales. 

''By  your  letter  of  the  third  of  this  month  you  requested  a  communication  of  the 
documents  which  relate  to  the  employ  of  a  million  advanced  to  the  United  States  on 
the  10th  June,  1776. 

''  I  communicated  this  request  to  the  committee  of  public  safety,  which  has  found  it 
to  be  due  from  its  justice  to  give  the  satisfaction  to  the  United  States  which  had  been 
refused  to  them  by  the  ministers  under  the  old  regimen.  In  consequence  of  which  I 
have  caused  the  necessary  search  to  be  made,  and  I  inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  a  receipt 
dated  June  10th,  1776,  which  appears  to  be  the  one  necessary  to  the  United  States  in 
adjusting  their  accounts. 

"  Mystery,  as  you  very  well  remark,  does  not  suit  two  people  united  by  all  the  ties 
of  friendship  and  a  common  interest.  ' 

"(Signed)  Buchot." 


[Translation.]  t 

"  1776. — I  have  received  from  Monsieur  Du  Vergier,  agreeably  to  the  orders  trans- 
mitted to  him  of  Monsieur  the  Count  of  Vergennes,  dated  5th  current,  the  sum  of 
one  million,  for  which  I  will  account  to  my  said  Sieur  Count  de  Vergennes. 
"At  Paris,  10th  June,  1776. 

"(Signed)  Caron  de  Beaumarchais." 

"  Good  for  one  million  of  livres  tournois. 
"True  copy. 

"(Signed)  Buchot." 

It  was  then  certain,  therefore,  that  it  was  Beaumarchais  who  received 
the  million  of  francs  the  destination  of  which  had  been  so  long  in  dis- 
pute; and  on  the  assumption,  not  unnatural,  that  this  million  had  been 
given  to  Beaumarchais  either  in  trust  specifically  for  the  United  States 
or  to  be  turned  into  supplies  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  fresh  dif- 
ficulties arose  in  the  way  of  settlement.  These  difficulties  are  thus  nar- 
rated by  Lomenie : 

"  '  They  bring  forward,'  wrote  Talleyrand  to  the  heirs  of  M.  de  Beaumarchais,  '  a 
receipt  given  by  the  latter  the  10th  June,  1776,  for  one  million  remitted  to  him  by 
order  of  M.  de  Vergennes,  and  wish  to  reckon  this  sum  in  the  supplies  furnished  by 
him  to  the  United  States.  As  the  payment  and  destination  of  this  million  related 
to  a  measure  of  secret  policy  ordered  by  the  king  and  forthwith  executed,  it  appears 
neither  just  nor  equitable  to  confound  it  with  the  mercantile  operations,  posterior  in 
date,  of  a  private  individual  with  the  Congress.  Consequently,  no  conclusion  against 
M.  de  Beaumarchais  as  a  personal  creditor  of  the  United  States  can  be  drawn  from 
the  document  communicated  by  the  ex-commissioner  for  foreign  affairs  (Buchot)  to 
the  American  minister. 

*  House  Doc.  No.  Ill,  IGth  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  vol.  5,  1823,  App. 
t  House  Doc.  No.  Ill,  15th  Cong.,  Ist  sess.,  vol.  5,  App. 

382 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  69. 

"  *  I  iuvite  you,  citizen  minister,  to  support  by  your  iullueuce  the  claims  of  the  Beau- 
marchais  family,  aud  to  dwell  upou  the  cousidoratious  of  national  <;o()(l  faith  and 
honor  to  which  they  appeal.  A  French  citizen  who  risked  for  the  sake  of  the 
Americans  his  whole  fortune,  and  whose  zeal  and  activity  were  essentially  useful 
during  the  war  which  obtained  for  them  their  liberty  and  their  rank  among  nations, 
might  without  doubt  aspire  to  some  favor;  at  least  ho  ought  always  to  be  heaid 
when  he  asks  only  for  honesty  aud  justice. 
''  'Receive,  etc., 

*' 'Talleyhand.'" 

In  181G,  when  Richelieu  was  French  secretary  of  foreign  aft'airs,  Gal- 
latin, American  minister  at  Paris,  applied  to  him  to  say  formally  that 
the  million  thus  furnished  on  June  10,  177G,  to  Beaumarchais  had 
nothing  in  common  with  the  supplies  furnished  by  Beaumarchais  to  the 
United  States.  Richelieu  answered  that  there  was  no  such  connec- 
tion. * 

The  claim  on  its  merits.        §  69.  We  havc  uow  to  cousidcr  the  bearing  of 

Beaumarchais'  claim  against  the  United  States,  of 
his  receipt  of  June  10,  1776,  taken  in  connection  with  Richelieu's  sub- 
sequent declaration  that  the  money  so  receipted  for  was  not  given  to 
purchase  supplies  for  the  United  States.  The  authority  of  Richelieu's 
declaration,  however,  it  must  be  first  observed,  is  much  impaired  by 
the  correspondeuce  subsequently  produced  by  Lomenie,  who  says : 

"  I  have  been  obliged,  nevertheless,  contrary  to  the  very  sincere  opinion  of  the 
heirs  of  Beaumarchais  aud  to  the  declarations  of  the  different  ministers  since  1778, 
all  based  upon  the  first  official  declaration  of  M.  de  Vergeunes — I  have  been  obliged 
to  re-establish  the  truth  as  to  the  fact  of  the  celebrated  million,  which  was  incon- 
testably  given  by  the  government,  not  for  a  secret  ijolitlcal  service  unconnected  with 
the  American  supplies,  but  for  the  supplies  themselves.  Finding  also  in  the  archives 
of  foreign  affairs  the  material  proof  that  Beaumarchais,  independently  of  the  first 
million,  given  June  10,  1776,  received  a  second  from  the  court  of  Spain  August  11, 
1776,  and  a  third  paid  by  installments  in  the  course  of  1777,  I  have  been  obliged  to 
mention  all  these  facts  because  they  are  true  aud  because  the  first  duty  of  a  writer 
who  respects  himself  is  not  to  conceal  the  truth."  (3  Lom6nie's  Beaumarchais  and 
His  Times,  224.) 

As  to  the  questions  of  international  law  ilivolved,  see  infra,  $  100  jf. 

Assuming  Lomenie's  inference  from  the  correspondence  before  him 
to  be  correct,  Dr.  Stille,  in  the  able  i)aper  already  cited,  argues  with 
much  force  that  the  million  in  question  should  be  deducted  from  Beau- 
marchais' claim  against  the  United  States.  On  the  other  hand,  Lome- 
nie insists  that,  even  supposing  this  '^  million"  to  have  been  meant  for 
the  purchase  of  supplies  for  America,  yet  this  was  but  a  comparatively 
small  part  of  the  funds  invested  by  Beaumarchais  in  the  enterprise, 
and  that  after  debiting  him  with  this  amount  a  sum  equal  at  least  to 
that  awarded  by  Hamilton  should  be  paid  to  him  to  make  good  his 
losses.  As  these  losses,  on  either  view,  can  only  be  arrived  at  by  the 
examination  of  accounts  covering  the  whole  of  Beaumarchais'  business 

*  See  more  fully  infra,  $  71. 

383 


§  70.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

transactions  during  the  revolutionary  war,  we  may  be  content  to  let 
the  assessment  of  what  was  due  him  rest  upon  the  settlement  adopted 
by  the  French  and  American  Governments  in  1831,  as  hereafter  stated. 
It  would  bennjust,  however,  not  to  admit  that  the  non  specification 
by  the  French  Government  of  the  object  to  which  the  "lost  million" 
was  applied  can  not,  as  we  will  next  see,  be  urged  against  that  gov- 
ernment as  sustaining  the  adverse  presumj)tion  usually  drawn  against 
a  party  who  withholds  a  fact  which  it  is  in  his  power  to  produce. 

Non-disclosure  of  secret-serv-        ^  70.  That  the  particular  destination  of  secret- 
ice  vouchers  gives  no  pre-  •'  ^ 

sumption.  scrvicc  moucy  is  not  to  be  recorded  in  the  pub- 

lic archives  is  one  of  the  necessary  incidents  of 
secret  service.  It  is  so  with  ourselves.  By  the  act  of  Congress  of 
May  1,  1810,  the  President,  in  distribution  of  the  contingent  fund,  is 
to  make  "  a  certificate  of  the  amount  of  such  expenditures  as  he  may 
think  advisable  not  to  specify ;  and  every  such  certificate  shall  be 
deemed  a  sufficient  voucher  for  the  sum  or  sums  therein  exjjressed  to 
have  been  expended."  Under  this  provision  the  practice,  as  stated  by 
President  Polk  in  his  special  message  of  April  10,  1840,  has  been  for 
the  President  simply  to  certify  to  the  accuracy  of  a  payment  without 
specifying  the  object,  the  certificate  being  not  unlike  that  of  Louis 
XVI  to  the  payment  of  the  million  in  question  to  Beaumarchais,  which 
did  not  name  the  object  for  which  the  payment  was  to  be  made.  This 
practice  has  been  continued  to  the  present  day,  and  during  the  late 
civil  war  was  the  basis  of  many  salutary  expenditures.  Xor  is  it  con- 
ceivable that  the  expenditures  of  France  in  assisting  the  United  States 
could,  in  1770,  have  been  limited  to  the  supply  of  war  material.  Eng- 
land was  then  flooding  France  with  secret  agencies  at  great  expense 
to  thwart  what  was  then  known  to  be  the  French  policy.  It  was  nat- 
ural and  certainly  not  inconsistent  with  her  traditions  that  France  should 
have  established,  to  aid  the  American  cause,  countervailing  agencies  to 
aid  America  in  England.  France  also  had  previously  sent  secret 
agencies  to  America.  It  would  not  have  been  strange  if  these  agencies 
should  have  been  continued  in  1770.  For  expenses  such  as  these  the 
sum  of  a  million  francs  was  by  no  means  too  much.  Nor  is  it  strange 
that  nothing  should  appear  in  the  French  archives  indicating  to  what 
particular  line  of  assistance  to  America  this  fund  was  applied.  The 
very  nature  of  secret  diplomatic  disbursements  precludes  the  retention 
of  such  specifications  on  record.  It  is  so  with  all  governments  which 
maintain  diplomatic  relations.  In  our  own  Department  of  State,  for 
instance,  there  is  not  a  vestige  of  a  record  which  will  show  the  appli- 
cation of  the  secret-service  appropriations  heretofore  made,  and  if  it 
was  desired  to  obtain  information  as  to  the  application,  for  instance, 
of  such  funds  during  the  Mexican  war  or  during  the  late  civil  war,  it 
would  be  found  as  impossible  to  obtain  such  information  as  it  was 
384 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE:    VERGENNES.  [§  71. 

found  iuii)()ssible  for  the  French   revohitionary  authorities  to  obtain 
information  as  to  the  specific  object  to  which  the  lost  million  went. 

It  can  not,  tl>erefore,  be  objected  to  Kichelieu's  statement  that  it 
gives  no  specification  of  the  puri)Ose  to  which  the  million  in  question 
was  applied.  Hence,  if  we  accept  that  statement,  Beaumarchais' 
claim  for  goods  supi)lied  is  not  to  be  affected  by  his  reception  of  this 
million.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Lom6uie  be  correct,  and  it*  the  million 
really  was  meant  for  and  went  to  the  purchase  of  supplies  by  Beau- 
marchais for  America,  then  we  must  now  hold  that  the  suppression  of 
this  fact  by  him  in  his  accounts  made  those  accounts,  as  a  basis  of 
collection  of  a  debt,  unreliable.  Under  such  circumstances,  and  after 
the  discovery  of  such  suppression  (supposing  Lomenie  and  not  Kiche- 
lieu  to  be  correct),  all  that  Beaumarchais  could  claim  would  be  a  gen- 
eral sum  for  losses  in  the  service  of  the  United  {States. 

seuiement  of  1831.  §  71.  Whcu,  eaxlj  in  1831,  the  reciprocal  claims  of 
France  and  the  United  States  were  under  discussion  in 
Paris  between  liives,  American  minister,  and  Sebastiani,  French  min- 
ister of  foreign  aflairs,  the  Beaumarchais  claim  was  assessed  by  Sebas- 
tiani at  2,699,099  francs.  In  his  explanation  of  the  claim  he  stated 
that  it  was  for  "les  fournitures  d'armes  et  d'habillement,"  furnished  by 
Beaumarchais  during  the  revolutionary  war  to  the  United  States, 
which  the  American  Government,  on  February  3,  1806,  had  liquidated 
at  667,250  livres,  with  interest  amounting  to  2,032,749  livres,  while 
subsequent  interest  brought  the  claim  to  3,70.0,874  francs. 

The  memorandum  then  states  that  the  federal  Government  had  re- 
fused to  pay  this  demand,  alleging  that  Beaumarchais  had  received 
in  1776  from  Vergennes,  from  the  secret  funds  of  the  foreign  oflSce, 
one  million,  which  he  had  employed  in  the  purchase  of  the  munitions 
for  which  he  now  demanded  the  i^ayment,  and  that  this  million  was 
part  of  the  gift  of  three  millions  which  Vergennes  stated  in  1783  had 
been  a  gratuity  to  the  United  States. 

To  this  the  Beaumarchais  heirs  replied  that  the  million  in  question 
had  not  been  used  in  the  purchase  of  the  munitions  for  which  the 
claim  w^as  made,  and  that  for  this  million  Beaumarchais  had  accounted 
to  the  French  Government,  to  which  alone  he  was  accountable.  They 
also  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  Gallatin,  when  United  States  min- 
ister at  Paris,  on  December  2,  1816,  addressed  to  the  French  secretary, 
Eichelieu,  an  inquiry  as  to  the  destination  of  the  million  in  question, 
adding  that  an  explicit  negative  by  the  French  Government  would 
dispel  the  objections  made  to  the  Beaumarchais  heirs ;  and  that  on 
December  16,  1816,  Eichelieu  answered,  declaring  formally,  "■  que  le 
million  d61ivr6  le  10  juin  1776  parvint  aussitot  a  la  destination  qui  lui 
^tait  assignee,  que,  suivant  I'usage  ordinaire,  un  simple  approuv6  du 
roi,  posterieur  seuiement  de  quelques  mois  au  paiement  de  la  somme 
(bon  du  7  d^cembre  1776)  a  etc  la^  seule  et  definitive  pi^ce  comptable 
25  WH  385 


§  71.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

de  la  d6pense,  et  que,  d'apr^s  un  nouvel  examen  des  faits,  ce  million  u'a 
pas  6te  appliqu6  a  I'acliat  des  expeditions  qui  auraient  ete  faites  aux 
Etats-Unis  par  M.  de  Beaumarchais." 

In  reply  to  Sebastiani's  note,  the  objections  which  had  heretofore  op- 
erated on  Congress  to  suspend  the  settlement  of  the  claim  were  stated 
by  Eives,  in  an  unpublished  dispatch  now  in  the  Department  of  State. 
This  dispatch  then  goes  on  to  say : 

''On  the  following  day  (the  22d  of  June,  1831)  I  called  again  on  tlie  minister  of 
foreign  affairs,  as  he  had  proposed,  and  found  Baron  Deffandis  with  him.  The  dis- 
cussion was  renewed  on  the  French  claims,  and  particularly  that  of  the  heirs  of 
Beaumarchais.  After  a  great  deal  of  conversation,  which  it  is  not  deemed  necessary 
to  detail,  the  subject  was  arranged  hy  the  ministers  agreeing  to  accept  a  gross  sum 
of  fifteen  hundred  thousand  francs  in  satisfaction  of  all  the  claims.  The  claim  of 
the  h#irs  of  Beaumarchais  alone  amounted  to  3,700,874  francs.  From  the  peculiar 
nature  of  this  claim,  and  the  connection  of  the  French  Government  with  it,  the  honor 
of  the  United  States  seemed  now  imj)eriously  to  demand  its  adjastmcnt,  whether 
intrinsically  well  founded  or  not.  The  million  which,  with  its  interest,  had  been 
charged  to  the  account  of  Beaumarchais,  was  not  alleged  to  have  been  paid  to  him 
by  the  United  States.  It  was  claimed  as  a  gift,  put  into  his  hands  by  the  French  king 
for  the  purpose  of  X)urcha8ing  the  supplies  with  which  he  had  furnished  the  United 
States.  But  the  French  Government  had  repeatedly  declared  that  it  was  not  applied 
to  the  purchase  of  those  supplies,  but  to  an  object  oi  secret  political  service,  of  which 
Beaumarchais  had  rendered  a  satisfactory  account  to  his  own  government.  Under 
these  circumstances  the  claim  had  been  successively  recommended  to  the  favorable 
consideration  of  Congress  by  Presidents  Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe;  two 
Attorneys-General  of  the  United  States,  Messrs.  Rodney  and  Pinkney,  had  given 
their  official  opinion  that  the  credit  claimed  by  the  United  States  was  not  sustain- 
able on  legal  principles,  and  of  ten  committees  of  the  House  of  Representatives  who 
had  examined  the  subject  six  (for,  since  the  preparation  of  my  observations  addressed 
to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  I  find  that  a  majority  of  those  committees  had  made 
reports  favorable  to  it)  have  recommended  its  payment. 

"If  the  claim  were  to  be  adjusted  in  the  United  States  it  appeared  impossible  to 
separate  the  interest  claimed  from  the  principal.  The  committees  of  Congress  which 
had  made  favorable  rei)orts  and  (particularly  the  select  committee,  which  made  its 
report  on  the  28th  January,  1823,  and  the  committee  of  foreign  affairs,  which  reported 
on  the  Ist  April,  1828,)  seem  always  to  have  regarded  the  interest  on  this  claim  as 
necessarily  incident  to  the  principal,  and  Mr.  Gallatin,  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
in  his  letter  of  27th  January,  1806,  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee  of  claims,  it  will 
be  perceived,  treated  the  interest  as  equally  due  with  the  principal.  To  get  rid  of  this 
claim,  amounting  alone  to  more  than  three  and  a  half  millions  of  francs,  and  of  others 
(among  which  were  some  of  clear  justice)  amounting  to  one  million  more,  for  a  gross 
Sum  of  o;ie  and  a  half  million  of  francs,  was  an  arrangement  so  obviously  advantage- 
ous for  the  United  States  that  I  did  not  hesitate  to  adopt  it." 

Out  of  the  fund  so  reserved  by  the  French  Government  under  the 
treaty  of  1831  the  heirs  of  Beaumarchais  were  paid  eight  hundred  thou- 
sand livres.  * 

*'  A  summary  of  this  remarkable  case  is  given  in  3  Hildreth's  United  States,  208  JT* 
As  to  Franklin's  position,  see  infra,  §  113. 

The  following  is  a  brief  summary  of  congressional  action  on  the  claim  in  its  various 
phases  down  to  its  settlement  in  1831  : 

June  18,  1778. — Report  of  committee  directing  forwarding  bills  of  exchange  to  meet 
claim  and  pledging  the  faith  of  Congress  to  their  payment.    (3  Journ.  Cont.  Cong.,  309. ) 

386 


CHAP.  IV.]  A.TT1TUDE  OF  FKANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  '^2- 

LaFayytte.        §  72.  La  Fayette's  services  in  the  revolutionary  war  pre- 
sent, thoii^li  numerous  letters  from  liim  and  to  him  appear 
in  the  following  voUimes,  comparatively  little  material  for  discussion, 
for  the  reason  that  his  motives  were  so  pure  aud  lofty,  his  action  so 
single  and  disinterested,  liis  devotion  to  Washington  so  uuswerving, 
JUS  life  so  trans[)arent,  as  to  leave  little  for  the  editor  of  his  letters  to 
explain  or  defend.     The  impulse  that  drew  him  into  the  war  was  not  a 
feeling  of  revenge  towards  England,  but  of  enthusiasm  for  the  young 
republic  across  the  ocean,  then  struggling  for  existence.    To  Beau- 
marchais  he  was  in  strong  contrast.     Beaumarchais  entered  the  service, 
after  very  mottled  experiences,  in  full  manhood  as  a  matter  of  excite- 
ment, display,  and  intrigue,  under  court  direction,  as  an  episode  in  a 
life  full  of  surprises,  which  often  absorbed  public  attention  from  their 
conspicuous  grotesqueness.     La  Fayette  threw  himself  into  the  Amer- 
ican cause  when  he  was  not  much  over  jiiueteen  years  of  age,  sacrificed 
in  so  doing  a  most  brilliant  advantage  at  court  and  in  the  military  pro- 
fession, aud  persevered  in  the  position  he  assumed  iu  youth  of  high- 
spirited  devotion  to  the  cause  of  constitutional  liberty  until  his  death 
in  1834.     It  was  the  delight  of  Beaumarchais  to  puzzle  and  bewilder 
Congress  by  his  mystifications  and  by  the  rapidity  of  his  changes  of 
personality.     La  Fayette  was  always  the  same,  straightforward,  simple, 
transparent,  perfectly  truthful,  sincere,  forming  the  link  between  Con- 
gress and  France  which  of  all  others  was  at  once  the  strongest  and 
brightest.     La  Fayette  gave  his  services  gratuitously,  in  addition  to 
large  gifts  of  money  and  supplies ;  and  he  rejected  offers  of  great  dis- 
tinction— as  when  the  command  of  the  Canada  invasion  was  offered  to 
him — when  he  saw  that  they  would  put  him  in  a  position  independent 
of  Washington.     With  Beaumarchais  money  and  display  were  the  main 

June  5,  1779. — Report  on  the  claim,  with  call  for  accounts.     {Id.,  299,  oOO.) 
October  1,  1785. — Report  that  Silas  Deane's  settlement  with  Beaumarchais  was  made 

without  authority,  aud  does  uot  bind  the  United  States.     (4  Jouru.  Cont.  Cong.,  873.) 
March  10,  1806. — Report  iu  House  examining  claim,  but  without  result.     (Ex.  Doc. 

9th  Cong.,  1st  sess.) 

February  6,  1807. — Jefferson's  message  recommending  claim  to  Congress,  with  me- 
morial, etc.     (Ex.  Doc.  9tli  Cong.,  2d  sesB. ) 

December  14,  1807. — Report  of  Madison  in  favor  of  claim,  sustained  by  report  of  C. 

A.  Rodney,  Attorney-General.     (Ex.  Doc.  10th  Cong.,  1st  sess.) 

March  8,  1812. — Unfavorable  report  (Gholson).     (Ex.  Doc.  12th  Cong.,  1st  sess.) 
March  15,  1814. — Favorable  report  (Lowndes).     (Ex.  Doc.  18th  Cong.,  2d  sess.) 
February  2,  1818. — Favorable  report  select  committee.     (House  Doc.  No.  Ill,  15th 

Cong.,  Ist  sess.,  vol.  5.) 
January  23,   1822. — Favorable  report  select  committee.     (No.  75,   17th  Cong.,  2d 

sess.  vol.  2.) 

Ma7'ch29,  1822. — Favorable  message  from  Monroe.     (Ex.  Papers  No.  102, 17th Cong., 

1st  and  2d  sess.,  vol.  6.) 
May  16,  1826. — Unfavorable  report.     (No.  217,  19th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  vol.  2.) 
April  1,  1828. — Report  recommending  re-imbursemeut  for  military  stores  furuished. 

(No.  220,  20th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  vol.  3.)     See  political  pamphlets  in  Library  of  Congress, 

vol.  118,  and  also  pamphlet  in  vol.  102. 

387 


§  72.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

objects  in  view,  aucl  his  interest  in  the  American  canse  was  dependent 
upon  these  objects  being  secured.  Yergennes  was  the  statesman,  who 
would  retain  the  past  stripped  of  its  stage  eftects;  Beaumarchais  the 
intriguer,  who  would  retain  the  stage  effects  and  get  rid  of  the  past; 
La  Fayette  the  hero,  who  would  build  up  a  future  based  on  what  is 
straightforward  and  free  and  real.  The  title  "  Grandison  Cromwell," 
given  by  Mirabeau  to  La  Fayette,  was  not  fair,  since,  however  Grandi- 
sonian  may  have  been  La  Fayette's  stately  chivalry  and  however  Crom- 
wellian  his  courage  in  warring  against  established  traditions,  he  had 
not  Grandison's  want  of  public  spirit,  nor  had  he  GromwelFs  lust  of 
power,  or  his  recklessness  as  to  means,  or  his  tortuousness  of  expres- 
sion. And  superior  as  Cromwell  was  to  La  Fayette  as  a  military  chief, 
it  is  imi)ossible  to  read  the  letters  to  and  from  La  Fayette  and  the 
letters  about  him  in  the  following  pages  without  seeing  that  La  Fay- 
ette took  a  leading  part  in  a  great  work  which  Cromwell,  if  he  had 
been  concerned  in,  would  probably  have  destroyed.* 

Doniol,  in  his  late  important  work  on  the  Participation  of  France  in 
the  Establishment  of  the  United  States,  thus  speaks  of  La  Fayette's 
return  to  France  in  September,  1778 : 

"  The  marquis  had  requested  Washington,  from  Boston,  September  28,  to  allow  him 
to  go  to  his  camp.  This  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  Canada  campaign — 
he  was  acquainted  with  the  unfavorable  views  of  the  commander-in-chief  on  the 
subject — but  in  order  to  explain  to  him  the  duty  which  rested  upon  him  of  returning 
to  France.  The  events  which  were  believed  to  have  taken  place  in  the  English  Chan- 
nel, and  which,  as  he  supposed,  would  be  closely  followed  by  a  French  expedition  to 
England  herself,  were  in  his  eyes  a  paramount  reason  for  his  leaving  America.  He 
communicated  this  reason  to  Congress  on  the  13th  October,  and  asked  their  assent  to 
his  immediate  return  to  his  native  land.  His  memoirs  and  the  principal  historians  of 
the  United  States  have  long  ago  related  the  language  with  which  Washington  and 
Congress  granted  him  the  leave  of  absence,  permitting  him  to  remain  one  of  the  gen- 
erals of  America  and  to  plead  the  cause  of  his  adopted  country  at  the  same  time 
that  he  resumed  his  rank  in  the  army  of  France — language  well  fitted  to  inspire  him 
with  that  feeling  of  pride  which  he  retained  to  the  close  of  his  life,  and  which  was 
shared  by  his  countrymen  equally  with  himself.  This  leave  of  absence  was  accom- 
panied by  messages  and  recommendations  calculated  to  give  as  much  weight  as  pos- 
sible to  any  steps  which  he  might  take.  After  the  retreat  from  Rhode  Island  Con- 
gress had  thanked  him  for  his  services  in  the  closing  events  of  the  campaign  by  a 
resolution  of  the  most  formal  and  flattering  character;  it  now  raised  him  to  the  dig- 
nity of  the  real  representative  of  the  alliance  between  the  two  countries.     Gerard 

*  See  index,  title  La  Fayette.  For  La  Fayette's  view  of  the  cabal  against  Wash- 
ington, see  supra,  $  11 ;  for  his  political  position  in  France,  see  infra,  $  78. 

"At  every  period  of  his  life,  and  above  all  in  his  zenith,  La  Fayette  displayed  a 
cold  and  grave  exterior,  which  sometimes  gave  to  his  demeanor  an  air  of  timidity 
and  embarrassment  which  did  not  really  belong  to  him.  His  reserved  manners  and 
his  silent  disposition  presented  a  singular  contrast  to  the  petulance,  the  levity,  and 
the  ostentatious  loquacity  of  persons  of  his  age ;  but  under  this  exterior,  to  all  ap- 
pearances so  phlegmatic,  he  concealed  the  most  active  mind,  the  most  determined 
character,  and  the  most  enthusiastic  spirit."  (2  Segur's  Memoirs,  106,  cited  John 
pton's  Yorktowu,  131.) 

388 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  73. 

was  about  to  write  to  tlio  admiral  to  give  him  a  passage  on  a  frigate,  if  one  should 
be  sent  to  France.  Congress,  anticipating  this  wish,  detached  one  of  the  frigates 
in  Boston  harbor  to  carry  him  home."     (;>  Doniol,  419,  420.) 

"Ho  had  written  to  the  Duke  of  Ayen  on  the  11th  September:  'The  main  reason  of 
my  return  is  the  expectation  of  an  invasion  of  England.  I  should  consider  myself 
almost  dishonored  if  I  was  not  there.  I  would  be  so  mortified  and  indignant,  that  I 
would  want  to  drown  myself  or  hang  myself  in  the  English  fashion.  It  would  bo 
the  height  of  my  wishes  to  drive  them  from  liere  and  then  go  to  England.'  "  (I  Mem- 
oirs and  Correspondence,  218.) 

On  September  9,  1778,  Congress  resolved  as  follows: 

"Resolved,  That  the  President  be  directed  to  write  to  the  Marquis  de  La  Fayette 
that  Congi'oss  has  decided  that  the  sacrifice  which  he  made  of  his  own  personal  feel- 
ings when,  in  the  cause  of  the  United  States,  he  went  to  Boston  at  the  very  moment 
when  an  opportunity  might  present  itself  of  acquiring  glory  on  the  field  of  battle, 
his  military  zeal  in  returning  to  Rhode  Island,  when  the  greater  part  of  the  army  had 
already  quitted  it,  and  the  measures  which  he  took  to  secure  the  retreat,  entitle  him 
to  the  present  mark  of  the  apijrobation  of  Congress."     (September  9,  1778.) 

Gerard,  in  a  dispatch  of  October  20,  1778,  thus  speaks: 

"  I  must  conclude  this  long  dispatch  by  rendering  to  the  wisdom  and  address  of  the 
Marquis  de  La  Fayette,  in  that  part  of  these  discussions  which  was  communicated  to 
him,  all  the  merit  and  justice  that  he  deserves.  He  gave  very  wholesome  advice,  au- 
thorized by  his  friendship  and  his  experience.  He  was  warmly  urged  to  return  with 
the  troops  which  the  king  might  send.  He  replied  with  becoming  feeling,  but  with 
the  most  complete  submission  to  the  king's  will.  1  can  not  help  remarking  that  the 
no  less  prudent  than  brave  and  amiable  behavior  of  the  Marquis  de  La  Fayette  has 
made  him  the  idol  of  Congress  and  of  the  armj'^  and  people  of  America.  His  military 
talents  are  held  in  high  estimation.  You  know,  my  lord,  how  averse  I  am  to  flattery, 
but  I  should  be  wanting  in  justice  if  I  failed  to  communicate  to  you  the  tributes  to 
his  worih  which  are  in  the  mouths  of  every  one  here  without  any  exception.  I  must 
not  omit  to  add,  my  lord,  that  when  M.  de  La  Fayette  consulted  me  as  to  the  manner 
of  tendering  his  resignation,  I  advised  hitn  to  ask  simply  for  an  indefinite  leave  of 
absence ;  because  I  knew  that  Congress  would  be  grieved  by  the  step  which  he  was 
taking,  and  that  he  himself  would  fear  its  being  interpreted  as  a  proof  of  his  being 
disgusted  with  the  service.     He  thought  fit  to  follow  my  advice."     (3  Doniol,  422.) 

Francy.        ^  73,  Qf  Francy,  whose  name  appears  in  the  following  pages 
as  Beaumarchais'  agent  in  America,  we  have  the  following  ac- 
count bj  Lomenie: 

He  was  "  a  distinguished  young  man,  in  whom  Beaumarchais  placed  great  confi- 
dence, and  whom  he  afterwards  sent  as  his  representative  to  America,  where  he  was 
very  useful  to  him.  Francy  served  his  patron  loyally,  and,  to  Beaumarchais'  great 
satisfaction,  made  a  large  fortune ;  unfortunately  he  was  consumptive  and  died 
young.  I  have  many  letters  from  him,  which  contain  many  interesting  details  about 
persons  and  things  in  America  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution,  and  which,  while  doing 
honor  to  his  intelligence  and  the  loftiness  of  his  sentiments,  prove  the  sincerity  and 
vivacity  of  an  affection  which  was  shared  by  all  who  approached  Beaumarchais.  I 
should  add  that  Thdveneau  de  Francy  was  the  younger  brother  of  Th^veneau  de 
Morande,  who  was  mentioned  in  one  of  our  former  chapters,  but  in  his  idea  of  morality 
he  did  not  resemble  his  brother;  accordingly  Beaumarchais,  while  keeping  one  at  a 
distance,  h-ad  discerned  the  merit  of  the  other  and  had  become  attached  to  him." 
(3  Lom6nie's  Beaumarchais  and  His  Times,  157.) 

389 


§§  74,  75.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

Fraiicy's  appearance  in  America  in  behalf  of  Beaumarcliais  has  been 
already  noticed.* 

Dubourg.  §  74.  Dubourg  (James  Barb6  Dubourg)  was  a  friend  and 
correspondent  of  Franklin  from  1767  till  Dnbourg's  death  in 
1779.  He  translated  and  edited  Franklin's  philosophical  works  prior 
to  the  Eevolntionj  and  he  distingnished  himself  by  other  literary  ])vo^ 
d notions,  the  most  popnlar  of  which  was  a  work  on  French  botany. f 
To  him  Silas  Deane  brought  letters  of  introduction  from  Franklin;  and 
it  was  to  Dnbourg's  prejudices — natural  enough,  in  view  of  their  re- 
si)octi>'e  antecedents — against  Beaumarchais  that  a  good  deal  of  the 
confusion  as  to  the  latter's  position  is  to  be  traced.  Dubourg  was  a 
})hilosopher  and  i>hilanthropist,  without  any  business  aptitude  what- 
ever; Beaumarchais  a  dramatist,  without  any  philanthropy  whatever, 
but  with  a  singular  genius  for  business  enterprises  that  did  not  require 
time  and  patience.  Dubourg  was  the  first  of  the  two  to  volunteer  his 
services,  but  however  great  may  have  been  his  probity,  his  want  of 
business  capacity  and  of  tbe  power  of  masking  his  purposes  made  him, 
in  Vergennes'  opinion,  incapable  of  managing  enterprises  which  de- 
pend so  much  on  the  disguise  as  did  the  shipping  of  supplies  to  Con- 
gress. There  is  little  doubt,  however,  that  Dubourg  fully  advised 
Franklin,  on  the  latter's  arrival,  of  Beaumarchais'  failings. 

Lamargais.        §  75.  Qf  LamaTgais,  who  flits  before  us  in  one  of  the  earlier 
stages  of  Beaumarchais'  negotiations,^  Deane  thus  speaks: 

"  I  recollect  that  Mr.  Lee  has  mentioned  Count  Lamargais  in  his  correspoudence 
■with  Monsieur  Beaumarchais,  and  am  informed  that  this  gentleman  has  in  his  letters 
been  referred  to.  Count  Lamargais  is  a  nobleman  who  was  bom  to  an  immense 
estate,  the  chief  of  which  he  has  long  gince  dissipated  in  a  wild  and,  I  may  say,  in 
such  an  eccentric  course  of  life  as  hardly  has  a  parallel  in  France.  He  has  set  up  at 
times  for  a  philosopher,  a  wit,  a  poet ;  then  as  suddenly  flew  off  and  engaged  in  build- 
ing, planting,  or  politics;  he  was  one  month  for  engaging  in  trade;  the  next  a  couu- 
try  gentleman  on  his  farm ;  the  third  blazing  in  the  beau  monde  at  Paris;  and,  France 
being  insufficient  to  afford  a  variety  of  scenes  equal  to  the  restlessness  of  his  genius, 
ho  has  constantly  been  shifting  them  from  Paris  to  London  and  from  Loudon  to  Paris. 
In  London  he  set  up  for  a  patriot,  and  engaged  seriously  in  the  disputes  and  parties 
of  the  day,  and,  what  was  very  diverting,  sat  down  for  a  few  weeks  to  study  the  laws 
of  England  in  order  to  confute  Blackstoue.  His  rank,  to  which  his  birth  entitles 
him,  gives  him  admittance  to  court,  and  the  extravagance  of  his  wit  and  humor 
serves  to  divert  and  please  men  in  high  office,  and  he  consequently  at  times  fancies 
himself  in  their  secrets.  This  gentleman  knew  Mr.  Lee  in  London  before  I  arrived 
in  France,  and  was  afterwards  often  with  him  at  Paris.  His  character  was  given  mo 
soon  after  my  arrival,  and  I  was  put  on  my  guard  and  warned  by  the  minister,  not 
that  ho  supposed  bim  to  have  designs  unfriendly  either  to  France  or  America,  but 
on  account  of  his  imprudence  and  of  his  being  frequently  in  London  and  with  those 

*  Supra,  $  62. 

t  See  Hale's  Franklin  in  Paris,  l^ff.     See  also  infra,  Committee  of  Correspondence 
to  Deane,  Mar.  3,  1776 ;  Deane  to  Committee,  Aug.  16,  1776. 
t  See  supra,  $$  52,  62. 

390 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE  :    VERGENNES.  [§  76. 

in  tlio  opposition  in  England  of  whom  the  court  of  Franco  wero  more  jealons,  and 
against  whom  they  were  equally  on  their  guard  as  with  tho  British  ministry  them- 
selves. As  this  nobleman's  name  may  ho  made  use  of,  I  can  not  dispense  with  touch- 
ing lightly  on  the  outlines  of  a  character  extremely  well  known  in  Franco  and  Eng- 
land, and  to  which  some  gentlemen  in  America  are  no  strangers."  (House  Doc.  No. 
3,  ir)th  Cong.,  Ist  sess.,  vol.  .5,  App.) 

Count  Brosiie;  his  political        ^  7(;^  ^f^Q  brotbcrs  of  tliis  liistorical  fiimily  are 

position.  •' 

referred  to  in  the  folio  win  ^i^  pa^es. 

Victor  Francois,  Due  de  Broglie,  was  born  in  1718.  After  serving  in 
Bohemia,  in  Alsace,  and  in  Germany,  he  was  made  marshal  ot*  France 
in  1759,  in  which  i)osition  he  showed,  according  to  eTomirii,  much  skill. 
Falling-  into  disgrace  after  the  battle  of  Corbach,  he  was  not  restored 
to  favor  until  17G4,  when  the  king  gave  him  the  government  of  the 
Trois  Ev^.ches.  Under  Lonis  XVI  he  took  high  military  position  and 
became  secretary  of  war.  He  left  France,  however,  after  the  king's 
execution,  and  was  in  command  of  the  first  emigrant  trooj)  that  en- 
tered  into  the  allied  ranks  against  France.  With  the  allies  he  served 
in  several  campaigns,  and  died  in  Germany  in  1804. 

Charles  Francis  Broglie,  the  "Count"  Broglie  with  whom  Ave  have^ 
more  particular  concern  (brother  of  Victor  Frangois),  was  born  in  1719. 
He  was  French  ambassador  to  Poland  in  1752,  his  object,  in  which  he 
had  little  success,  being  to  retard  Polish  absorption  in  liussia.  In  the 
Seven  Years'  War  he  took  an  active  part.  After  this  war  he  was  em- 
ployed in  the  secret  diplomacy-  of  Louis  XV,  his  performances  in  this 
line  being  narrated  in  the  curious  work  The  King's  Secret,  by  the  Due 
Charles  Jacques  de  Broglie,  in  1778.  After  the  war  ot  1778  against 
England  was  declared.  Count  Broglie  applied  for  the  command  of  an 
armed  camp  forming  in  iNormandy  for  an  invasion  of  England,  but  this 
appointment  was  refused,  and,  despairing  of  the  i)romotiou,  he  en- 
gaged in  unwise  litigation,  in  order  to  obtain  the  condemnation  of 
those  who  he  thought  unjustly  prevented  his  advancement.  This  em- 
bittered the  remainder  of  his  life,  and  he  died  in  1781,  as  much,  his 
biographer  tells  us,  from  despaii:  and  disappointment  as  from  disease.* 

Count  Broglie's  inismate  connection  with  the  secret  policy  of  Louis 
XV  brought  on  him  the  disfavor  of  Louis  XVI.  Vergennes,  however,t 
removed  the  ban  so  far  as  to  restore  the  count  to  employment,  though 
not  to  favor.  He  had,  in  the  fall  of  1774,  high  provincial  military  com- 
mand given  to  him,  and  his  i)osition  was  strengthened  by  the  report  of 
the  two  ministers  to  whom  his  case  had  been  referred,  that  in  his  con- 
duct he  had  acted  under  the  express  directions  of  the  deceased  king. 
But  the  Count,  who,  in  an  opinion  indorsed  by  Doniol,  was  distin- 
guished as  much  for  recklessness  as  for  ability,  could  not  believe  that 
his  return  to  favor  had  been  but  partial.     He  had  been  one  of  t>he  most 

*  The  history  both  of  Marsbal  and  of  Count  Broglie  is  ahly  given  in  Dr.  Still^'s 
article  on  Broglie  in  the  Penn.  Mag.  ©f  Amer.  History,  etc.,  £or  Jan.,  1888. 
t  See  3  Doniol,  636. 

391 


§  77.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

accomplished  generals  iu  the  prior  war.  lie  had  strong  friends  in  the 
administration.  He  naturally  sought  a  field  of  action  suitable  to  his 
past  services  and  to  the  rank  which  his  family  had  obtained.  At  what 
time  he  looked  to  America  as  the  theater  in  which  the  anxieties  of  his 
past  could  be  obliterated  and  new  renown  won  is  not  certain.  It  is 
clear  that  he  had  no  part  in  the  movements  in  behalf  of  America  which 
took  place  prior  to  the  fall  of  1775;  but  towards  the  end  of  that  year 
he  was  in  conference,  as  to  American  affairs,  with  Kalb,  who  was  one 
of  his  brother's  staff,  and  whom,  as  we  will  see,  Choiseul  had  sent  to 
America  in  1769  as  a  secret  agent  to  report  on  the  then  relations  of  the 
Colonies  to  the  mother  country.  Of  Count  Broglie  Horace  Walpole 
thus  speaks : 

"If  he  is  at  Paris,  you  will  sec  a  good  deal  of  the  Comtc  de  Broglie  at  Madame  de 
Deffand's.  He  is  not  a  geuiiis  of  the  first  water,  but  sometimes  agreeable."  (Horace 
Walpole  to  Conway,  Sept.  28,  1774;  G  Cunningham's  Walpole,  128.) 

Suggested  as  American  gen-       s  77^  Jq  ^  dispatch  from  Deauc  to  the  commit- 

eral-m-chiei.  •'  *■ 

tee  of  secret  correspondence,  under  date  of  De- 
cember G,  1776,  is  the  following,  which  is  omitted  in  Sparks'  edition, 
and  is  now  taken  from  the  original  in  the  Department  of  State: 

"  I  submit  one  thought  to  you,  whether,  if  you  could  engage  a  great  general  of  the 
highest  character  in  Europe,  such  for  instance  as  Priuce  Ferdinand,  Marshal  Broglie, 
or  others  of  equal  rauk,  to  take  the  lead  of  your  armies — whether  such  a  step  would 
not  be  politic,  as  it  would  give  a  character  and  credit  to  your  military,  and  strike 
perhaps  a  greater  panic  in  our  enemies.  I  only  suggest  the  thought,  and  leave  you 
to  confer  with  the  Baron  de  Kalb  on  the  subject  at  large.''  * 

Kalb,  as  we  will  presently  see,  was  preparing  at  this  time  for  his 
voyage  to  America.  On  December  11,  1766,  Broglie  addressed  him  a 
letter,  which  is  thus  translated  in  the  American  edition  of  Kapp's  Life 
of  Kalb,  page  94 : 

''I  do  not  doubt  that  the  plan  communicated  to  you  by  M.  Dubois  meets  your  en- 
tire approbation.  It  is  clearly  indispensable  to  the  permaueuce  of  the  work.  A 
military  and  political  leader  is  wanted,  a  man  fitted  to  carry  the  weight  of  authority 
in  the  colony,  to  unite  its  parties,  to  assign  to  each  his  place,  to  attract  a  large  num- 
ber of  persons  of  all  classes  and  carry  them  along  with  hiui ;  not  courtiers,  but  brave, 
efficient,  and  well  educated  officers,  who  confide  in  their  superior,  and  repose  im- 
plicit faith  in  him.  There  need  not  be  many  grades  of  a  higher  order,  but  there  is 
need  of  some,  because  the  corps  and  the  country  are  separate  from  each  other;  not 
but  that  there  is  room  enough  for  a  number  of  persons  from  among  whom  a  selection 
may  be  made.  The  main  point  of  the  mission  with  which  yon  have  been  intrusted 
will,  therefore,  consist  in  explaining  the  advantage,  or  rather  the  absolnte  necessity, 
of  the  device  of  a  man  who  would  have  to  be  invested  with  the  power  of  bringing 
his  assistants  with"  him,  and  of  assigning  to  each  the  position  for  which  he  shonld 
jndge  him  to  be  fitted.  The  rank  of  the  candidate  would  have  to  be  of  the  first  emi- 
nence, such,  for  instance,  as  that  of  the  Prince  of  Nassau.  His  fnnctions,  however, 
would  have  to  be  confined  to  the  army,  excluding  the  civil  service,  with,  perhaps, 
the  single  exception  of  the  political  negotiations  with  foreign  powers.     In  proposing 


*See  note  to  this  letter,  infra,  under  date  of  Dec.  6,  1776. 
392 


CHAP.   TV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FlJANCi:.  [§  77. 

sucli  a  vian,  you  mufif,  of  coin'sc,  not  appear  to  loiow  xvlieiher  he  (iitertains  any  wish  for 
such  a posHion  ;  *  but  at  the  s;iino  tiiiu^  you  must  intimate  that  nothing  but  tlio  most 
favorable  stipulations  would  induce  liini  to  make  the  sacrifices  expected  of  him.  You 
would  have  to  observe  that  three  yeara  would  be  the  longest  period  for  which  ho 
could  possibly  bind  himself,  that  he  would  claim  a  fixed  salary,  to  continue  after  the 
expiration  of  that  period  of  st^rvice,  and  that  on  no  account  would  ho  consent  to  ex- 
jvatriate  himself  forever.  What  should  make  yon  particularly  explicit  on  this  point 
is  tliat  the  assurance  of  the  man's  return  to  France  t  at  the  end  of  three  years  will 
remove  every  apprehension  in  regard  to  the  powers  to  be  conferred,  and  will  remove 
oven  the  semblance  of  an  ambitious  design  to  become  the  sovereign  of  the  new  re- 
public. You  will,  therefore,  cf)ntent  yourself  with  stipulating  for  a  military  author- 
ity for  the  person  in  (question,  who  would  unite  the  i)osition  of  a  general  and  president 
of  the  council  of  v/ar,  with  the  title  of  generalissimo,  field  marshal,  etc.  Of  course 
large  pecuniary  considerations  would  have  to  be  obtained  for  the  preparations  for 
the  journey  and  for  the  journey  itself,  and  a  liberal  salary  for  the  return  home,  much 
in  the  same  manner  as  has  been  iu  the  case  of  Prince  Ferdinand.  You  can  give  the 
assurance  that  such  a  measure  will  bring  order  and  economy  into  the  public  expenses, 
that  it  will  reimburse  its  cost  a  hundred  fold  in  a  single  campaign,  and  that  the  choice 
of  officers  who  follow  their  loader  at  his  word  and  form  attachment  to  his  person  is 
worth  more  than  the  re  enforcement  of  the  army  with  ten  or  twenty  thousand  men. 
You  will  know  the  2)ersons  ivho  adhere  to  this  leader  and  the  unlimited  number  of  suhal- 
terns ;  yon  know  that  they  are  not  courtiers,  but  excellent  and  well-bred  sol- 
diers; you  l^noiv  better  than  others  the  great  difference  between  the  one  candidate  and  the 
oth(r,t  and  will  lay  particular  stress  upon  this  point.  You  will  be  equally  mindful 
to  dwell  upon  the  effect  necessarily  produced  by  such  an  appointment  on  its  mere 
announcement  in  Europe.  Even  in  a  good  European  army  everything  depends  upon 
the  selection  of  a  good  commander-in-chief;  how  much  more  in  a  cause  where  every- 
thing has  got  to  be  selected  and  adjusted.  It  is  not  easy  to  find  a  man  qualified  for 
such  a  task  and  at  the  same  time  willing  to  undertake  it.  If  matters  down  there — 
'  la  has  ' — should  turn  out  well,  you  should  induce  Congress  immediately  to  send  little 
Dubois  back  to  Mr.  Deane  with  full  powers  and  directions.  These  powers  should  be 
limited  in  no  respect,  except  in  so  ftir  as  to  remove  all  danger  of  a  too  extensive  use 
of  the  civil  authority,  or  of  ambitious  schemes  for  dominion  over  the  republic.  The 
desire  is  to  bo  useful  to  the  rex^ublic  in  a  political  and  military  way,  but  with  all  the 
appropriate  honors,  dignities,  and  powers  over  subordinate  functionaries;  iu  short, 
with  a  well  ordered  power."' 

On  December  17,  1776,  Kalb  addressed  to  Deaoe  a  paper  entitled 
*^  Projet  dont  I'execMition  deciderait  peut-etre  le  siicces  de  la  cause  de 
la  liberte  des  I^]tats  TJnis  d'Anieiiqit€  sans  que  la  cour  de  France  parut 
y  avoir  pour  le  present  la  nioindre  part." 

Of  this  paper  Dr.  0.  J.  Stille,  iu  bis  excellent  monograph  on  Bro- 
jrlie,  publisbed  in  the  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History,  vol.  xi,  378, 
gives  the  following  extract : 

"In  comparing  the  condition  of  the  United  States  with  that  of  Holland  when  it 
suffered  from  the  tyranny  of  its  sovereign,  I  tiiink  that  the  same  system  which  proved 
so  advantageous  for  the  establishment  of  the  republic  in  the  Low  Countries  would 
produce  a  similar  effect  in  the  United  States. 

*  This  points  to  Broglie  himself,  since  the  Prince  of  Nassau,  wlio  was  introduced  as 
a  mere  mask,  does  not  app«^ar  to  have  ever  indicated  any  desires  on  the  subject  which 
it  would  1)0  the  duty  of  Kalb  to  concede. 

tThis  excludes  the  Prince  of  Nassau,  and  points  directly  to  the  Count  de  Broglie. 

t  That  is,  between  the  Prince  of  Nassau  and  Count  de  Broglie, 

393 


§  77.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

"The  beginuiug  of  tlie  Revolution  in  America  is  an  event  of  the  ntiiiosfc  importance 
to  all  the  European  powers,  but  especially  to  France,  wliich  would  take  any  measure 
to  bring  about  the  formal  separation  of  the  Colonies  from  the  mother  country  which 
did  not  involve  war  with  England.  This  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  aid  already 
secretly  furnished  by  France  to  the  Americans. 

"But  in  my  opinion  what  is  necessary  for  these  States,  now  in  the  position  of  mere 
children,  is  some  foreign  troops,  and  especially  a  commander  of  a  high  reputation  in 
Europe— one  whose  capacity  for  commamling  an  army  is  equal  to  that  of  the  Duke 
of  Brunswick  or  Frederick  the  Great,  who  should  unite  a  name  made  illustrious  by 
many  heroes  to  a  long  military  experience,  and  to  (lualities  fittej.  to  conduct  such 
an  enterprise  with  prudence,  integrity,  and  economy,  under  the  control  of  Con- 
gress." 

"After  stating,"  to  adopt  Dr.  Still«5'8  summary,  "that  America  can  raise  one 
hundred  thousand  troops,  brave  men  indeed,  but  few  trained  officers,  he  speaks  in 
complimentary  terms  of  the  merits  and  services  of  Washington,  but  then  goes  on 
to  say : 

"  *  That  Congress  itself  seems  to  admit  that  it  has  need  of  foreign  aid  is  clear,  since 
it  has  applied  to  France  for  arms  and  for  officers;  that  many  had  been  enrolled  who 
were  very  inferior  persons ;  and  that  evidently  what  Congress  needed  most,  by  its 
own  admission,  was  the  election  of  a  chief  commander,  who  should  have  power  to 
choose  his  own  subordinates,  and  that  of  course  such  a  chief  would  select  the  best, 
who  would  be  Frenchmen,  and  willing  to  follow  wherever  he  would  lead.' 

"  He  thinks,"  so  Dr.  Stillc  continues,  "that  the  appointment  of  such  a  man  to  the 
supreme  command  would  be  equal  to  additional  force  of  twenty  thousand  men,  would 
double  the  efficiency  of  the  American  army,  and  especially  that  it  would  completely 
control  in  the  interest  of  economy  the  military  expenses. 

"The  w^riter  is  quite  certain  that  such  a  man  can  be  found  in  France;  that  his 
name,  when  announced,  will  unite  all  lovers  of  America  and  all  capable  soldiers  in 
Europe.  His  terms  would  probably  be  his  appointment  as  field  marshal  and  general- 
issimo, with  a  considerable  sum  of  ready  money  for  the  support  of  his  family  during 
his  absence  from  France. 

"In  reply  to  the  objections  which  may  be  made  to  this  scheme,  as  that  a  man  with 
such  extended  powers,  with  a  large  number  of  his  officers  completely  subject  to  him, 
might  be  tempted  to  destroy  the  liberties  of  the  country  and  make  himself  its  master, 
he  replies:  (1)  That  his  power  would  be  subordinate  to  that  of  Congress,  and  that  he 
would  have  the  military  control  only.  (2)  That  he  (the  writer)  would  risk  his  head 
that  the  noble  and  generous  heart  of  his  chief  would  be  incapable  of  anything  of  the 
kind.  After  this  assurance  he  speaks  of  the  self-denial  which  the  proposed  chief  will 
be  forced  to  impose  upon  himself  in  leaving  France,  where  he  is  on  the  point  of  being 
named  marechal,  and  that,  therefore,  it  should  be  understood  that  if  the  Americans 
have  need  of  his  services  they  should  ask  the  King  of  France  to  name  their  general- 
issimo duke  and  jyeer  of  France. 

"He  concludes  by  leaving  the  whole  subject  in  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Franklin  and 
Deane,  only  urging  them  to  profound  secrecy  in  regard  to  the  project  which  he  had 
submitted  to  them." 

From  the  then  staud-point  of  Broglie  there  was  nothing  strange  in 
the  idea  that  a  European  soklier  of  high  social  and  political  rank  shoukl 
be  proffered  to  lead  the  American  Colonies  in  their  revolt.  Poland,  to 
which  Kalb  had  previously  gone  on  a  mission  similar  to  that  with  which 
he  was  now  intrusted,  had  been  for  many  years  the  object  of  enterprises 
of  this  very  kind ;  Russia  and  France  each  in  turn  proffering  subjects 
of  distinction  as  candidates  for  the  throne,  while  noble  aspirants  of 
394 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FlUNCE.  [§  77. 

various  grades  entered  the  contest  on  their  own  behalf.  Don  John  of 
Austria  had  been  spoken  of  for  an  oriental  sovereignt3';  Leicester,  in 
Queen  Elizabeth's  time,  and  Marlborough,  in  the  time  of  Queen  Anne, 
received  offers  of  the  Government  of  The  Netherlands.  Wallenstein's 
aspirations  for  the  imperial  crown  were  regarded  as  but  natural  in  view 
of  his  splendid  military  gifts  and  daring  ambition.  In  after  years 
Bernadotte  was  elected  to  the  Swedish  throne,  and  Maximilian  sent  by 
Louis  Napoleon  to  govern  Mexico.  We  have  no  right,  therefore,  to  be 
surprised  that  Kalb,  unaware  of  Washington's  character  and  position 
and  as  yet  imperfectly  acquainted  with  that  rude  independence  and 
impatience  of  foreign  control  by  which  the  American  character  was 
marked,  should  have  looked  upon  Broglie's  election  to  an  American 
dictatorship  as  feasible;  and  it  is  no  more  strange  that  he  should  liave 
conceived  such  a  project  before  his  voyage  than  that  he  shonld  have 
abandoned  it  in  America  when  he  saw  how  things  actually  were.  But 
it  is  a  matter  of  suprise  that  Deane  should  have  gravely  recommended 
such  a  project  to  Congress. 

In  this  connection  maybe  considered  the  following  letters  from  copies 
of  the  dispatches  of  Stormont,  British  minister  at  Paris,  to  Weymouth, 
British  secretary  of  state. 

"  Count  Bi'oglie  certainly  keeps  np  a  correspondence  with  the  rebel  agents.  I 
know  that  a  letter  directed  to  him  was  seen  lyin^  upon  Deane's  table."  (Stormont  to 
Weymouth,  Aug.  16,  1776.) 

"  Though  I  can  by  no  means  warrant  the  intelligence  I  am  going  to  give  your  lord- 
ship, yet  it  is  of  too  important  a  nature  to  be  passed  over  in  silence.  I  will  give  it  to 
you,  ray  lord,  exactly  as  I  have  received  it. 

"  The  French  ministers  not  only  disavow  all  engagements  with  the  American  Colon- 
ies, but  have  endeavored  to  trace  to  the  bottom  the  cause  of  their  lying  under  that  sus- 
picion, and  have,  in  the  course  of  their  researches,  made  a  very  extraordinary  dis- 
covery. They  have  found  that  Count  Broglie  has  for  many  months  past  carried  on 
a  secret  correspondence  with  the  principal  members  of  the  Congress,  upon  whom  he 
passed  himself  as  a  man  authorized  by  government  to  treat  with  them.  His  rank 
and  name  deceived  them  :  they  thought  they  were  treating  with  a  minister  secretly 
authorized  by  this  court,  and  offered  him  the  command  of  their  army  and  very 
large  appointments.  He,  on  his  part,  engaged  to  furnish  a  body  of  six  thousand 
men,  three  hundred  officers  thirty  of  them  officers  of  artillery,  and  eighty-four 
pieces  of  cannon,  all  of  them  eight-pounders.  These  secret  engagements  raised  the 
hopes  of  Congress,  and  were  one  of  the  principal  reasons  that  determined  them  to 
pass  the  act  of  independence,  but  finding  that  the  articles  of  Count  Broglie's  conven- 
tion with  fchem  were  not  executed,  they  began  to  conceive  some  suspicions,  and  com- 
plained of  the  conduct  of  their  secret  emissaries  here.  Dr.  Franklin,  who  had  it 
in  his  instructions  to  try  to  unveil  this  mystery,  has  discovered  all  Count  Broglie's 
secret  maneuvers. 

*' It  is  still  uncertain  what  steps  the  ministers  will  take,  whether  they  will  pass 
the  whole  over  in  silence,  or  resent  the  conduct  of  Count  Broglie  and  the  unwar- 
rantable use  he  has  made  of  their  nam  e."    (Stormont  to  Weymouth,  Feb.  5,  1777.) 

It  is  not  unlikely  that  Franklin,  having  some  glimpse  of  Count 
Broglie's  aspirations,  should  have  mystified  one  of  Stormont's  ''inter- 
viewers "  by  i^ersiflage,  such  as  that  Stormont  includes  in  the  above  dis- 

395 


§  77]  INTRODUCTION^.  [CHAP.  IV. 

patcl).  Or  it  may  be  that  iu  retaliation  for  the  fabricated  "  intercepted 
letters '-  published  in  England,  some  members  of  the  French  ministry 
may  have  been  the  means  of  the  statement  reaching  Stormont. 

That  Arthur  Lee  was  at  least  cognizant  of  a  movement  of  this  char- 
acter may  be  inferred  from  his  letter  of  February  14,  1776,  to  Golden,* 
in  which,  writing  under  disguise,  he  says: 

**  A  general  of  the  iirst  raulv  and  abilities  would  go  over  if  the  Congress  would 
authorize  any  one  to  promise  him  a  proper  reception.  This  I  had  from  Mr.  Lee,  agent 
f<u'  Massachusetts,  but  it  must  be  secret  with  yon,  as  I  was  not  to  mention  it." 

Tills  "  general "  could  scarcely  have  been  General  Charles  Lee,  who 
never  attained  a  higher  rank  than  colonel  in  the  British  service.  Mr. 
Bancroft  thus  summarizes  the  facts  as  given  in  Broglie's  letter  to  Kalb 
above  quoted : 

''The  Count  de  Broglie,  disclaiming  the  ambition  of  being  sovereign  of  the  United 
States,  insinuated  his  willingness  to  be  for  a  period  of  years  its  William  of  Orange, 
provided  he  coukl  be  assured  of  a  largo  grant  of  money  before  embarkation,  an 
ample  revenue,  the  direction  of  foreign  relations  during  his  command,  and  a  princely 
annuity  for  life  after  his  return."     (6  Bancroft's  United  States,  519.) 

In  a  report  to  the  British  Government  by  "  Edwards,"  a  spy  in  their 
employment,  under  date  of  January  25,  1777,  it  is  said,  '^Tlie  Count  do 
Broglie  offered  Mr.  Deane  to  take  the  command  of  the  rebel  army  gratis.^ 
Two  inferences  may  be  drawn  from  this:  (1)  That  there  was  a  rnmor 
afloat  as  to  Count  Broglie  offering  his  services,  such  a  rumor  as  might 
arise  from  loose  talk  on  the  part  of  Deane,  or  of  some  one  of  the  Broglie 
clientage;  (2)  That  "Edwards  "  had  not  accurate  information  of  the  posi- 
tion, since,  if  he  had,  he  would  not  have  made  so  gross  a  blunder  as  that 
of  saying  that  Broglie  offered  to  serve  '•^  gratis. ^^ 

Early  in  1777,  however,  all  idea  of  a  French  dictatorship  in  America 
disappeared. 

'*La  maison"  (says  Douiol,  ii,  316)  "qu'il  habitait  a  Passy  n'«5tait  pas  devenue  le 
rondez-vous  des  politiqnes  et  des  gazetiers  seulement;  dcs  militaires  du  plus  haut  rang 
vcuaient  le  fcliciter  des  plans  suivis  par  Washington,  Les  marcchaux  Maillebois  ct 
de  Broglie  s'dtaient  plus  a  lui  apporter  leur  approbation  formelle." 

Deane's  conferences  with  Broglie,  so  far  as  they  involved  any  offer  of 
chief  military  command,  were  not  only  unauthorized  by  Congress,  but 
could  not  have  been  regarded  by  him  at  the  time  he  made  them  as  any- 
thing more  than  a  compliment,  which  was  sufficiently  backed  up  by  him 
in  the  letter  to  Congress  quoted  above.  Congress  took  no  notice  of  the 
suggestion,  nor,  after  Kalb's  arrival  in  America,  when  he  had  the 
oi)portunity  of  seeing  what  was  the  state  of  the  country,  did  it  again 
emerge,  t 

*  See  infra,  §  141. 

tin  the  Stormont  Papers,  forming  part  of  the  Sparks  Collection,  Harvard  College, 
(No.  59),  are  several  references  to  "Broglie's"  activity  in  dispatches  sent  by  Stormont 
in  the  early  part  of  1777. 

396 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  78. 

French  voiiiiitiMrs, ci.iiract_cr-        K  7^s.  Tlic  FrcMcli  wlio  took  ariiis  ill  the  rcvolii- 

istirs  of :    La  I'aycttc,  Al)(»-  -^ 

villi).    AiMiand.    Boiti>i»ir,     tioiiiiry  Ciiiisc  tiiaiV  1)6  (lividcd  into  three  chisses  : 

Victor      Bn)<ilie,      Charles  ^      ,,,,  ,  i...         ,.  .,  •  i 

(Castries),  ciia.steiiux.Cus-        (I)  rhcraiik  1111(1  file  ot  the  armies  seiitov^er  by 

tine,     Damas,     Dumas,    Du       ^         .      -.y.^-rr        mi  •  .  i  ' 

Portal!,    Fernen,    Fieury,     Louis  Xvl.     ihcse  ciuiie  over  siiiipiy  uiiuer  or- 

(yharles  Laineth,   Thtuxloro        ,  ..,  i-i-i  i-^>  i_i      •  ,  i  i 

Lamoth.AiexaiiuerLam.th,     clcrs,  With  as  little volition  Oil  their  part  as  woiud 

Laiiziin,    (Hiron).   JVIandijit,       ,  i  ,i  iii.ii.  i.i.r»ii 

Noaiues,  sojiur,  Vauhaii,  hav^c  beeii  the  case  liad  they  been  seut  to  Poland 
Sles  vwf^nli'iillelulm'  or  to  Turkey.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  navy, 
bean,  Duponceau.  iiicliidin^'  the  ofUcers,  among  whom  there  were 

very  few  who  were  vohinteers. 

(2)  Adventurers  who  infested  tlie  American  legation  with  applications 
for  commissions  and  for  money,  and  who  would,  in  most  cases,  have 
been  ready  to  enter  into  any  service  that  would  ofter  them  })ay  and 
emoluments.*  In  speaking  of  this  class  Abbe  Kobin,  in  his  Nouveaii 
Voyage  dans  l'Am(3rique  Septentrional  thus  writes:  "The  greater  num- 
ber of  the  first  French  who  came  to  America  when  the  Revolution  broke 
out  were  men  crippled  with  debts  and  without  reputation  at  home,  who, 
announcing  themselves  by  assumed  titles  and  false  uames,  obtained  dis- 
tinguished rank  in  the  American  army,  received  considerable  advances 
in  money,  and  disappeared  at  oiice."t  Il^o  doubt  Deane  was  imposed 
upon,  as  is  elsewhere  seen,  by  disreputable  adventurers,  who  were  of 
tlie  same  type  as  those  who  in  our  own  days  hurry  to  enter  into  serv- 
i(je  in  foreign  insurrections.  But  the  only  case  of  an  officer  obtaining 
"distinguished  rank  in  the  American  army  under  a  false  title"  was 
that  of  Kalb ;  and  though  this  eminent  and  gallant  soldier  had  no  claim 
to  the  title  of  "  baron, '*  yet  that  title  was  given  to  him  by  the  French 
military  authorities,  and  was  passed  tons  from  them.  There  w^as,  it  is 
true,  a  little  occasional  exaggeration  by  the  early  volunteers  of  their 
homo  military  rank,  but  iu  uo  case  was  this  exaggeration  the  meaus  of 
wiuning  high  American  commissions. 

(3)  Young  nobles,  officers  in  the  French  army,  who  came  over  as  vol- 
unteers, leaving,  in  order  to  enter  into  the  American  service,  high  social 
positions  as  w^ell  as  the  prospect  of  that  military  promotion  which  in 
France  the  nobility  could  then  almost  exclusively  command.  These 
young  officers  offered  themselves  for  American  service  under  the  stress 
of  that  enthusiasm  for  liberty  which  was  then  beginning  to  work  x)ower- 

*  See  a  curious  "  iutercepted"  letter  of  Barou  de  Boustettiu  in  Londou  Chronicle 
of  July  1-3,  1779. 

The  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania  coutaius  copies  of  the  following:  Extrait  du 
Journal  d'un  ofificier  de  la  marine  do  I'escadre  de  M.  le  comte  D'Estaiug,  1782.  Abr6«j;6 
de  la  Revolution  do  FAmdrique  anglaise,  par  M.  *  *  *  ani6ricain,  Yverdon,  1779. 

tSeeSPenn.  Mag.  of  History,  etc.,  515.  A  letter  to  Count  Broglie  by  a  French  officer 
in  America  (3  Doniol,  216)  gives  a  startling  account  of  the  quality  of  the  French  officers 
then  offering  to  serve  Congress.  Most  of  those  in  Charleston,  S.  C,  on  the  arrival 
of  the  Victoire,  in  June,  1777,  are  described  as  covered  with  debts,  some  driven  from 
their  regiments,  some  whom  the  governors  of  colonies  had  sent  out  to  get  rid  of  them. 
At  first  these  adventurers  were  well  received,  but  soon  they  fell  into  a  disgrace) 
which  their  nation  as  a  whole  had  to  bear. 

397 


§  78.]  INTiiODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

fully  in  France.  It  is  not  strange  that  it  should  liave  been  so.  The 
fact  that  literature  in  the  then  state  of  France  reached  only  the  priv- 
ileged classes  made  it  operate  with  concentrated  eliectiveness  on  those 
classes  as  it  thus  became  a  badge  of  privilege;  and  French  literature 
was  then  dominated  by  two  liberal  impulses  of  unexampled  power, 
that  towards  individual  liberty,  started  by  Voltaire,  and  that  of  social- 
istic liberty,  started  by  Rosseau.  It  was  natural  that  the  young  nobility 
should  be  seized  by  this  enthusiasm.  The  nobility  had  been  deprived 
of  political  i)0wer  under  Richelieu  and  Louis  XIY.  Court  distinction, 
which  was  all  that  remained  to  them,  had  become  so  loathsome  under 
Louis  XY,  that  few  generous  minds  could  contemplate  court  life  with- 
out disgust.  The  court,  indeed,  under  Louis  XVI  was  decorous,  yet 
this  very  decorum  took  away  from  court  life  the  luster,  meretricious  as 
it  was,  under  which  it  had  previously  shown.  Then  came  the  American 
Revolution.  By  Franklin's  presence  in  France  the  cause  of  this  Revo- 
lution was  allied  to  that  of  literature  and  science.  In  itself  it  opened 
to  generous,  chivalric,  cultivated  young  officers  the  only  field  of  dis- 
tinction accessible  to  them.  These  officers  were  almost  exclusively 
nobles,  some  of  them  representing  families  of  the  highest  rank.  They  be- 
came the  connecting  links  between  the  two  revolutions.  They  brought 
from  France  the  impulses  which  were  then  working  to  effect  a  revolu- 
tion not  only  political,  but  social  and  economical.  They  carried  back 
to  France  from  America  these  impulses  more  or  less  modified  by  their 
American  experience.  Of  these  young  nobles,  infusing  as  they  did 
something  of  the  temper  of  French  liberalism  into  the  American  Revo- 
lution and  something  of  the  temper  of  American  liberalism  into  the 
French  revolution,  a  few  words  maj^  now  be  said  in  detail.  They  were 
not  formal  diplomatists,  but  they  took  and  brought  back,  by  their 
actions,  messages  of  great  moment  to  the  nation  to  whom  they  came 
and  the  nation  to  which  they  returned. 

La  Fayette,  in  his  relations  to  America,  has  been  already 
aye  te.  gp^j^^j^  Qf  #  Qf  j^jg  position  lu  European  politics  no  terser 
or  truer  summary  can  be  found  tha,n  that  given  by  Charles  X.  "He 
and  I,"  so  said  that  most  unwavering  of  absolutist  princes,  "  are  the 
only  two  perfectly  consistent  men  in  France;  he,  in  his  unflinching  de- 
votion to  constitutional  liberalism ;  I,  in  my  equally  unflinching  devo- 
tion to  monarchy  without  a  constitution."  La  Fayette,  when  he  entered 
the  Xational  Assembly,  insisted  on,  as  essentials  to  good  government : 
First,  a  bill  of  rights,  embracing  the  main  safeguards  contained  in  the 
Declaration  of  American  Independence  and  in  the  Amendments  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Second,  the  distribution  of  power 
in  three  co  ordinate  departments — legislative,  executive,  and  judicial. 
The  bill  of  rights  he  readily  succeeded  in  carrying  not  only  promptly, 
but  with  immense  enthusiasm  on  the  part  of  the  Assembly ;  but  earn- 

*  Supra,  $  72.     As  to  La  Fayette's  Virginia  campaigns,  see  6  Mag.  of  Amer.  History, 
340, 

398 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF   FRANCE.  [§  78- 

estly  and  eveu  passionately  as  be  advocated  it,  he  did  not  succeed  in 
the  second  and  most  essential  proposition,  that  of  investing  the  exec- 
utive and  the  judiciary  with  powers  co-ordinate  with  the  legislature, 
liut  to  this  position  he  adhered,  true  to  liberty,  and  at  the  same  time 
1  rue  to  the  belief  that  liberty  was  as  much  endangered  by  legislative 
or  ])opular  as  by  executive  usurpation.  It  was  his  fidelity  to  this  last 
conviction  that  caused  him  to  be  persecuted  in  turn  by  the  revolution- 
ary convention  of  1793,  by  Napoleon,  and  by  the  Bourbons. 

Among  the  French  nobles  who  came  to  us  under  the  same  impulse  as 
La  Fayette  the  following  may  be  mentioned,  taking  them  in  alphabeti- 
cal order : 

Francis  (Comte  d')  Aboville  was  born  at  Brest  in  1730. 
He  came  to  America  as  a  volunteer  in  1778,  and  served  in 
America  as  colonel  under  Rochambeau.  Returning  to  France,  he  was 
made  a  general  of  brigade  in  1789  and  a  general  of  division  in  1792,  in 
which  position,  being  in  command  of  the  armies  of  the  uorth  and  of  Ar- 
dennes, he  denounced  the  treason  of  Dumouriez.  After  the  18th  of 
Brumaire  he  became  successively  first  inspector-general  of  artillery, 
senator,  and  governor  of  Brest.  His  position  had  been  that  of  a  liberal 
constitutionalist  of  the  Gironde  type,  and  he  remained  in  comparative 
seclusion  during  the  Empire.  When  Louis  XYIII  returned  and  pro- 
claimed a  constitution  tolerably  liberal  he  was  supported  by  Aboville, 
who  held  high  military  office  until  his  death  in  1815. 

Charles  Armaud  Tufin,  Marquis  de  la  Rouarie,  was  born  in 
1756,  in  Brittany.  His  early  life  was  at  least  sufficiently 
adventurous.  He  fought  a  duel  Avhen  not  much  more  than  a  boy  to  sus- 
tain his  pretensions  to  a  beautiful  actress ;  and  then,  as  a  way  of  either 
making  amends  for  his  folly  or  evading  domestic  discipline,  he  hid  him- 
self for  a  while  in  a  Trappist  monastery.  This,  however,  he  could  not 
long  endure,  and,  seized  with  enthusiasm  for  America,  he  took  passage 
in  March,  1776,  for  Philadelphia.  The  ship,  which  was  chased  by  Brit- 
ish cruisers,  was  run  aground  on  Delaware  Bay,  her  papers,  passengers, 
and  crew  being  saved.  On  May  10,  Armand  was  commissioned  by 
Congress  as  colonel,  and  he  was  authorized  to  raise  a  corps  of  French- 
men for  the  Continental  service.*  He  was  with  La  Fayette  in  an  en- 
l-ouuter  at  Gloucester  in  November,  1777,  and  took  part  in  the  engage- 
ments at  Red  Bank  and  Brandywine.  On  February  4, 1779,  he  wrote 
to  Congress  asking  leave  to  return  to  France,  upon  which  Congress 
passed  a  resolution  expressive  of  its  approval  of  "  his  disinterested 
zeal  and  services."  He  determined,  however,  to  put  off'  for  a  time 
his  departure;  and  on  February  13,  1779,  Congress  appropriated 
$94,000  to  him  to  enable  him  to  recruit  his  corps.  He  distinguished 
himself  during  the  ensuing  summer  and  fall  by  great  efficiency  as  a 


*  See  4  Washington's,  Writings,  422  ;  5  id.,  171 ;  Corr.  of  Rev.,  Letters  to  Washing- 
ton, i,  375. 

399 


§  78.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.    IV. 

partisjiu  leader,  wiuning  liigh  applause  from  Wasliingtou.*  In  the 
Soiithera  campaign  of  1780  be  was  with  Gates  atOamdeu,  where  his 
"legion,"  it  was  alleged,  shared  in  the  common  disgrace,  though  as  to 
how  far  its  leader  was  responsible  for  this  has  been  a  matter  of  much 
dispute.!     Of  Armand  Washington  shortl}^  afterwards  writes: 

"  Colonel  Armaud  is  an  officer  of  great  merit,  wliicli,  added  to  bis  being  a  foreigner 
to  bis  rank  in  life,  and  to  tbe  sacrilices  of  property  lie  bas  made,  render  it  a  point  of 
delicacy  as  well  as  justice  to  ccmtinue  to  bim  tbe  means  of  serving  bouorably."  (Wash- 
ington to  President  of  Congress,  Oct.  11,  1780;  7  Wasbington's  Writings,  252;  to 
same  effect  Washington  to  Armand,  Nov.  27,  1780,  id.,  309.) 

On  February  3, 1781,  Armand  then  proposing  to  sail  for  Europe,  Wash- 
inu'ton  commended  him  to  Biron  ''  as  an  officer  who  has  distinguished 
himself  by  his  talents,  bravery,  and  zeal  in  the  service  of  this  country."  f 

On  his  marriage  Washington  sent  him  a  letter  of  warm  congratula- 
tion. §  When  in  France,  where  he  spent  the  summer  of  1782,  Armand 
made  many  purchases  for  the  American  service;  and  on  his  return,  in 
September,  he  appears  to  have  been  under  Washington\s  immediate 
orders.  On  March  2G,  1783,  he  was  made  brigadier  general,  having  been 
previously  detailed  to  the  support  of  Greene  in  South  Carolina.  In  1784, 
on  his  return  to  France,  he  re  entered  his  post  in  the  French  army,  and 
in  1788  was  appointed  colonel  of  chasseurs.  Of  his  political  position 
the  following  notice  is  given  by  Jefferson: 

"Tbe  uoblesso  of  Bretague,  wbo  bad  receiveil  witb  so  mucb  warnitb  tbe  late  innova- 
tions in  tbe  government,  assembled  and  drew  up  a  memorial  to  tbe  king,  and  cboso 
twelve  members  of  their  body  to  come  and  present  it.  Among  these  was  tbe  Mar([uis 
de  la  Ronario  (Colonel  Armand).  Tbe  king,  considering  tbe  noblesse  as  baving  no 
legal  rigbt  to  assemble,  declined  receiving  tbe  memorial.  Tbe  deputies,  to  give 
greater  weight  to  it,  called  a  meeting  of  tbe  landed  proprietors  of  Bretagne  resident 
at  Paris,  and  proposed  to  tbem  to  add  tbeir  signatures.  They  did  so  to  tbe  number 
of  about  sixty,  of  wbom  tbe  Marquis  de  La  Fayette  was  one.  Tbe  twelve  deputies, 
for  baving  called  tbis  meeting,  were  immediately  sent  to  tbe  Bastile,  wbere  they  now 
are,  and  tbe  Parisian  signers  were  depriv^ed  of  sucb  favors  as  tbey  beld  of  tbe  court." 
(Jefferson  to  Jay,  Paris,  Aug.  3,  1788,  3  Jefferson's  Works,  4.50.)  Tbe  deputies  of  Bre- 
tagne are  released  from  tbe  Bastile.    (Same  to  same,  id.,  483.) 

He  subsequently  took  strong  royalist  ground;  was  a  conspicuous 
leader  in  various  reactionary  movements  in  Brittany  ;  became  a  refugee, 
and  died  of  fever  when  under  proscription,  in  a  place  of  refuge,  on  Jan- 
uary 30,  1795.  II 


*  2  Peun,  Mag.  of  History,  etc..  9. 

t  See  tbe  autborities  examined  in  2  Penn.  Mag.  of  History,  etc.,  18.^. 

lid.,  394.  See  to  same  effect  Wasbington  to  Congress,  Marcb  7,  1783,  8  id.,  391  ; 
W^asbiugton  to  Eocbambeau,  May  16,  1784,  9  id.,  44. 

^  9  id.,  190. 

II  An  interesting  life  of  Armand  by  Mr.  Townsend  Ward  is  given  in  2  Penn.  Mag.  of 
History,  1^.  A  series  of  letters  from  Armand  to  Washington,  covering  tbe  period  of 
Armand's  military  services  in  America,  will  be  found  in  tbe  collections  of  tbe  New  York 
Historical  Society  for  1878.  Tbese  letters  relate  almost  exclusively  to  matters  military, 
though  tbey  are  diversified  by  an  aggount  of  a  bloodless  duel  in  February,  1782^ 

400 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE    OF    FRANCE.  [§  78. 

Alexjuidi'e  J>ei'tliier  was  burn   at  Versailles  in  1753.     In 

BertLier. 

his  seventeenth  year  lie  entered  as  nuijor  in  tlie  corps  royal 
and,  volunteering  in  the  American  service,  was  with  La  Fayette  in 
several  encounters  and  was  with  Uochambeaii  in  West  Chester,  and  at 
Yorktown.  Attaching  himself  on  his  return  to  France  to  La  FXy^'tte, 
he  was  nominated  as  major-general  of  the  national  guard  of  Versailles, 
in  which  i)ost  he  showed  a  chivalric  devotion  to  the  safety  of  the 
royal  family.  He  then  served  with  distinction  at  La  Vendee,  and 
in  1790  he  took  high  command  in  the  Italian  campaigns.  It  was  in 
these  campaigns  that  he  became  closely  attached  to  Napoleon,  be- 
coming as  chief  d'etat  major  gene  ral  de  I'armee.  Under  the  imperial 
government  he  was  successively  marshal  of  the  empire,  prince  of 
Nenfchatel,  and  prince  of  Wagram,  and  he  married  a  niece  of  the  king 
of  Bavaria.  Notwithstanding  this  ace  umulation  of  honors,  coupled  with 
enormous  emolutnents,  he  was  among  the  first  on  the  restoration  to 
recognize  Louis  XVf  11,  who  made  him  a  peer  and  gave  him  confiden- 
tial military  rank.  The  hundred  days  placed  him  in  a  position  of  great 
distress. 

Napoleon,  not  aware  of  his  defection,  wrote  him  an  affectionate  letter, 
calling  on  him  for  aid.  In  order  to  avoid  the  alternatives  thus  pressed 
on  him  he  hastened  to  his  country  residence  at  Bamberg,  where 
shortly  afterwards  he  was  found  dead  under  his  window,  killed  by  the 
fall.  The  prevalent  opinion  was  that  he  had  throw^n  himself  from. the 
window  in  agony  at  seeing  Russian  troops  march  by  on  their  way  to 
Paris.  According  to  another  account  he  was  thrown  from  the  same 
window  by  armed  assassins.  His  abilities  were  practical  rather  than 
speculative;  the  enthusiasm  for  liberty  which  brought  him  to  America 
remained  at  least  latent  during  the  remainder  of  his  life.  His  value  to 
Napoleon  consisted  in  his  extraordinary  capacity  for  the  arrangement 
and  execution  of  military  details. 

Victor  Claude  (Prince  de)  Broglie.  a  son  of  Victor 
Franc; ois  (due  lie)  Broglie,  was  born  in  1/57.  He 
visited  the  United  States  at  the  close  of  the  revolutionary  war  as  a 
volunteer,  and  won  in  a  marked  degree  the  regard  of  Washington.  lie- 
turning  to  France,  he  took  strong  liberal  grounds,  differing  in  this  from 
his  father,  and  his  uncle,  Count  Charles  Francois  Broglie,  but  agreeing 
with  his  cousins,  the  Lameths.  Prince  Broglie  was  a  deputy  to  the  States 
General,  and  was  employed  as  "marechal  de  camp"  in  the  army  of  the 


between  Armaud  ami  "  Captain  Suickers,"  and  by  letters  after  his  return  to  France 
as  to  the  payment  of  arrears,  and  as  to  the  political  condition  of  France.  In  a  letter 
of  June  18,  1789,  he  speaks  of  himself  as  keeping  terms  with  all  parties,  and  as  fear- 
ing '^' two  great  evils  for  my  country — anarchy  on  the  one  hand,  despotism  on  the 
other." 

On  January  2,  1790,  he  denounces  the  "constitution's  makers,"  and  deplores  the 
general  disorder  of  the  realm.  On  March  22,  1791,  he  writes  still  more  despondiugly  : 
"Our political  affairs  are  all  in  the  most  deplorable  situation;  loyaltd,  good  sense, 
firmness,  seem  to  be  banished  from  our  unhappy  and   perhaps   more  guilty  country," 

2G  WH  401 


§  78.]  INTRODUCTION.       •  [CHAP.  IV. 

Rhine.  He  refused  adhesion,  however,  to  the  decree  of  deposition  of 
August  10,  and  was  arrested  and  executed  early  in  1794  by  the  order 
of  the  revolutionary  tribunal.  Shortly  before  his  death  he  prepared  a 
letter  to  his  family,  declaring  that  his  attachment  to  liberal  constitu- 
tional government  was  unshaken,  resolute  as  had  been  and  was  his  de- 
termination to  resist  decrees  which  established  a  despotism  of  terror  in- 
stead of  a  government  of  law.* 

Armand-Nicolas-Augustiu  (Comte  de)  Charles,  in  our 

Charles  Castries.  .  ^  ,^,^  .  ,  .         „^^ 

service,  alter  wards  Due  do  Castries,  was  born  lu  17oG, 
and  was  for  a  short  time  connected  with  Rochambeau's  family  in 
our  Rev^olutionary  war.t  He  was  a  deputy  to  the  noblesse  in  the 
National  Assembly,  and,  during  the  sessions  of  that  body  had  a 
quarrel  with  Charles  de  Lameth,  which  ended  in  a  duel,  in  which  the 
latter  was  wounded.  Castries  left  France  shortly  afterwards,  and  or- 
ganized a  corps  of  emigrants,  whom  he  commanded  in  some  of  the 
earlier  allied  attacks  on  France.  He  did  not  return  to  France  until 
1814,  when,  under  the  Bourbon  restoration,  he  was  made  a  peer  of 
France  and  lieutenant-general. 

Francois    Jean    de    Beau  voir,  Marquis  de  Chastellux, 

Chastellux.  ^  .       ^      .  5  h  7 

was  born  in  Pans  in  1731,  and  was  a  relation  of  La  Fay- 
ette. He  entered  the  French  army  in  1747,  and  served  through 
the  Seven-years'  war  with   distinction.      On  March  1,   1780,  he   was 

*  See  2  Dulaiire's  History  of  France,  175  ;  3  id.,  228  ;  5  id.,  482. 

Priuce  de  Broglie  and  Count  de  Segnr  visited  Wasliington  at  bis  headquarters  on 
Octobers,  1782,  and  in  a  letter  of  October  18  to  Franklin,  Washington  spoke  of  tlieni 
as  "amiable  and  accomplished  young  gentlemen."  Of  Broglie,  Franklin  in  his  note 
of  introduction  of  Aprils,  1782,  said: 

"He  bears  an  excellent  character  here,  is  a  hearty  friend  of  our  cause,  and  I  am 
persuaded  you  will  have  a  pleasure  in  his  conversation." 

A  narrative  by  Prince  Broglie,  translated  by  Miss  E.  W.  Balch,  of  Philadelphia,  ap- 
liears  in  the  Magazine  of  American  History  for  April,  1877. 

"On  Priuce  BrogUe's  return  from  America  he  joined  the  party  of  nobles  who  main- 
tained liberal  ideas,  and  was  sent  to  the  Constitutional  Assembly  as  deputy  for  the 
district  of  Colmar,  where  the  estates  of  his  wife  were  situated.  He  acted  with  the 
minority  of  the  nobles  in  the  assembly,  and  when  that  body  was  dissolved  he  served 
as  chief  of  staff  in  the  army  of  the  Rhine,  commanded  by  Marechal.  After  the  10th 
of  August,  and  the  fall  of  monarchy,  ho  resigned  from  the  service  and  retired  to  his 
couutry  seat  in  Franch-Comtd.  There  he  was  arrested  October  28, 1793,  and  was  taken 
to  Paris,  where  he  was  guillotined  June  27,  1794,  just  a  few  days  before  the  9th  of 
Thermidor."     (1  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  etc.,  180.) 

In  a  notice  by  Mr.  C.  H.  Hart  of  the  article  on  "Prince  de  Broglie"  in  I  Magazine 
of  American  History,  180,  the  correctness  of  the  title  priuce,  in  the  case  of  Claude 
Victor  de  Broglie,  is  questioned.  His  father,  as  is  said,  was  Due  de  Broglie,  and  sur- 
vived the  son.  To  this  it  may  be  replied  that  the  title  "  prince  "  was  given  to  him  on 
his  visit  to  America  by  La  Fayette,  and  that  he  was  consequently  so  addressed  when 
here.     (See  Livingston  to  La  Favette,  Nov.  2,  1782.) 

+  1  every  day  expect  my  brother-in-law.  Count  de  Charlus,  only  son  to  the  Mar- 
quis de  Castries,  who  enjoys  a  great  consideration  in  Franco,  and  has  won  the  battle 
of  Closter  Camp.     (La  Fayette  to  Washington,  Nov.  13,  1780.) 

402 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  78. 

made  marechal  de  camp;  and,  ia  recoguitioa  of  his  services  at  York- 
towii,  was  appointed,  on  December  5,  1781,  governor  of  Longwy.  Of 
his  visit  to  Washington,  on  December  5,  1782,  he  gave  an  animated 
account  in  his  "Voyage  dans  PAmerique  Septentrionale  dans  les 
annees,  1780-1783."*  He  died  in  Paris  on  October  28,  17^8,  a  pro^ 
nounced  liberal  in  his  political  views.  His  literary  reputation  was  high, 
having  obtained  for  him  a  place  in  the  French  Academ3\ 
To  Chastellux,  Washington,  on  December  14,  1782,  wrote  as  follows: 

'*A  sense  of  your  public  services  to  this  country  and  gratitude  for  your  private 
friendship  quite  overcame  me  at  the  moment  of  our  separation.  But  I  should  do  vio- 
lence to  my  feelings  and  inclination  wore  I  to  suffer  you  to  leave  this  country  without 
the  warmest  assurances  of  an  aft'ectionate  regard  for  your  person  and  character." 
(8  Washington's  Writings,  366.)  t 

Adam  Philippe  (Oomte  de)  Oustine  was  born  at  Metz  in 
1740.  At  an  early  age  he  entered  the  army  and  served  with 
Marshal  Saxe  in  his  Netherland  campaigns.  His  conduct  in  those 
and  following  campaigns  was  so  meritorious,  that  Choiseul  created  for 
him  a  regiment  of  dragoons  called  after  him,  of  which  he  took  com- 
mand in  1780.  He  obtained  by  exchange  the  command  of  an  infantry 
regiment,  which  was  sent  to  America,  where,  as  references  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages  show,  he  greatly  distinguished  himself.  On  his  return 
to  France  he  was  made  marechal  de  camp,  and  was  made  governor  of 
Toulon.  In  the  National  Assembly,  to  which  he  was  elected  a  member 
in  1789,  he  acted  generally  with  the  left.  He  was  head  of  an  army 
division  on  the  lower  Rhine  in  1792,  and  seized  Landan,  Spire, 
Worms,  Mentz,  and  Frankfort.  His  evacuation  of  these  cities  drew 
on  him  suspicion,  but  he  was  received  back  with  favor  and  appointed 
to  a  command  in  the  north.  This,  however,  was  only  an  illusory  honor. 
The  convention  decreed  his  arrest,  and  **  Levasseur  de  la  Sarthe 
charged  himself  with  this  perilous  mission.  Arrived  at  the  camp,  the 
rei)resentative  desired  a  review  of  the  troops;  forty  thousand  men  were 
under  arms.  The  soldiers,  who  suspected  Levasseur  of  coming  to  carry 
off  their  chief,  refused  him  military  honors.  *  *  *  The  general  was 
arrested.  Oustine  did  not  imitate  Dumouriez.  He  obeyed,  and  i)re- 
ferred  the  scaftbld  to  the  land  of  the  stranger.  *  »  *  Oustine  (on  his 
trial)  terminated  the  debate  by  a  defense  of  two  hours,  wherein  the 
clearness  of  his  refutation,  the  dignity  of  sentiment,  the  masculine 
and  sober  pathos  of  the  warrior,  and  the  revolutionary  eloquence  of  the 
undoubted  patriot,  inspired  all  spectators  with  emotion  and  resi)ect. 
The  juries,  by  an  unexpected  majority,  delared  him  guilty.  The  tri- 
bunal pronounced  the  sentence;  it  was  that  of  death.  *  *  *  On 
rising  (in  his  cell)  he  requested  a  priest,  and  passed  the  entire  night 
with  the  minister  of  God.     *     *     *     He  wrote  a  feeling  letter  to  his 

*See  1  Penn.  Mag.  of  History,  etc.,  36G. 

tSeo  also  7  id.,  308,  319,  325;  9  id.,  346,  where  Washington  congratulates  Chastellux 
on  his  marriage.     See  also  1  Peuu.  Mag.  of  History,  etc.,  227,  360;  2  id.,  166,  472. 

403 


78.]  INTKODUCTION.  [CIIAP.  IV. 

soil,  to  recoiiuueiid  to  him  the  care  of  his  memory  iu  the  brilliant  days 
of  the  republic,  and  the  re-establishment  of  his  innocence  in  the 
hearts  of  the  people  when  time  should  remove  their  suspicions."*  To 
his  creed  as  a  constitutional  liberalist,  holding-  the  same  doctrines  as 
La  Fayette,  he  remained  true  to  the  end. 

Of  Cnstiue,  Sybel,  a  judicious  German  critic,  thus  writes:  ^'Custine,  formerly  a 
marquis  of  the  aucieut  regime,  employed  iu  diplomatic  missions  and  frequently  hon- 
ored by  the  confidence  of  the  Emperor  Joseph  and  the  favor  of  the  Prussian  Govern- 
ment, has  taken  part  in  the  revolution  with  all  the  pride  and  self-contidence  of  an 
experienced  politician  and  a  gallant  soldiei'.  Like  most  of  his  contemporaries,  he  had 
no  presentiment  of  the  incalculable  vastuess  of  the  interests  at  stake,  and  no  con- 
sciousness of  the  duties,  the  uon-performance  of  which  must  bring  about  universal 
ruin  to  his  country.  He  saw  nothing  but  the  glorious  fruits  of  eulighteumout,  exten- 
sion of  power  for  France,  and  the  promotion  of  his  gwq  personal  interests.  In  his 
fiery  zeal  he  had  advanced  too  far  to  recede,  and  was  even  obliged  to  atone  for  his  title 
of  ancient  nobility  by  showing  himself  the  most  radical  of  all  the  generals  iu  the  army 
of  the  Rhine."    2  Sybel's  French  Revolution,  164,  t 

iStienne  Charles  (Due  de)  Damas-Crux  was  born  at  the 

Damas.  ^         n  r-t  '       •,  ^^  i  i-t* 

castle  01  Crux  in  17o4,  and  was  engaged  in  the  American 
war  as  colonel  of  the  Aquitaine  regiment,  but  was  taken  prisoner  and 
after  his  release  returned  to  France.  During  the  revolutiou  he  emi- 
grated from  France,  and  was  inaiechal  de  camp  in  the  army  of  Conde. 
In  1801  he  was  one  of  the  family  of  the  Due  d'Angouleme,  with  whom 
he  returned  to  France  iu  1814,  and  on  the  second  restoratiou  received 
high  military  and  civil  appointments.  Refusing  ofhce  under  Louis 
Philippe,  he  died  in  retirement  in  1846. 

Matthieu  Dumas  was  born  in  Montpelier  in  1753,  and  was 

distinguished  through  his  military  career  for  his  great 
capacity  of  organization  and  administration.  Entering  service  iu 
his  twentieth  year,  he  was  an  effective  aid  of  Rochambeau  during 
the  latter's  American  campaigns.  |  After  the  peace  Dumas  was  em- 
ployed on  several  important  missions  connected  with  his  profession. 
In  1789  he  took  active  part  with  La  Fayette  in  the  organization  of  the 
national  guards.  He  was  placed  by  the  National  Assembly  in  leading 
military  positions ;  but  he  was  suspected  by  the  ultra-revolutionists, 
and  with  difficulty  made  his  escape  from  Paris.  Returning  to  France 
after  the  18thBrumaire  he  was  appointed  to  a  prominent  military  i^osi- 
tion  by  Napoleon.  He  w^as  a  general  of  division  in  1805,  and  was 
minister  of  war  to  King  Joseph  in  Naples  in  1803-1808.  Becoming 
intendant  general  in  the  Russian  campaign,  he  was  taken  prisoner,  with 
his  suite,  at  the  capitulation  of  Dresden  in  1813.  He  acquiesced  in  both 
the  first  restoration  and  in  the  government  of  the  hundred  days,  but 
on  the  second  restoration  w^as  remitted  to  private  life.     In  18li2  he  was 

*  3  Lamartine's  Girondists,  98,  132,  133.     See  7  Washington's  Writings,  3IG,  319. 
t  See  also  2  Dulaure's,  History  of  France,  273,  295,  489,  4  id.,  492. 
I  For  his  account  of  the  battle  of  King's  Bridge,  see  4  Mag.  of  Amcr.  History,  43. 
404 


CirAP.  IV,]  ATTITUDE    OF    FRANCE.  [§  78. 

elected  a  deputy,  and  as  such  took  part  in  tlie  movements  whicb  led  to 
the  revolution  of  18:30,  under  which  he  for  the  third  time  was  ai)pointed 
to  take  charge  of  tiie  organization  of  the  national  guards.  He  was  a 
devoted  friend  of  La  Fayette,  whoso  eailier  and  later  political  course  he 
followed.     He  died  in  Paris  in  1837. 

Dumas  thus  describes  one  of  the  minor  incidents  of  the  campaign  be- 
fore New  York  in  1781 : 

"My  friend  Charles  do  Lamotli,  tlio  two  hrotliors  Tlortliicr,  who  had  lately  arrived 
from  France  ajid  joined  our  stafV,  and  niys(dr,  established  our  T)ivoiiac  near  the 
headquarters  of  our  general,  M.  de  Beville,  (the  quartermaster-general  of  the  army), 
in  a  very  pleasant  situation  between  rocks  and  under  the  shade  of  maguiiicent 
tuli[)  trees.  Wo  amused  ourselves  in  ornameuting  this  little  spot,  near  whieh  our 
cannon  were  lixed,  and  iu  a  short  time  and  at  a  very  triiliug  expense  we  bad  a 
very  pretty  garden.  General  Washiugton,  who  was  takiug  a  survey  of  bis  line,  de- 
sired to  see  ns.  We  had  been  apprised  of  bis  visit,  and  he  found  on  our  tables  the 
plans  of  the  battle  of  Trenton,  with  the  account  of  the  war  of  West  Point  and  sev- 
eral other  actions  of  the  war."     (4  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  21.) 

Here,  under  these  tnlip  trees,  meeting  the  chief  of  the  American  Revolution,  were  the 
Lametbs,  representatives  of  constitutional  liberalism  iu  the  French  revolution,  and 
Dumaa  and  Berthier,  represcntiug  that  revolution  in  its  various  stages,  and  the  em- 
pire iu  its  rise  and  fall. 

In  Blaucbard'sMeuioirs,  the  journey  of  himself  and  Duruas  from  Providence  to  New 
York,  on  June  10,  178*2,  is  narrated  with  much  liveliness.  They  left  Providence  June 
10  with  two  servants  and  three  horses.  They  dined  at  Waterraau's  tavern,  fifteen 
miles  from  Providence,  where  they  paid  9  livres,  French  money,  for  dinner  and  for- 
age. At  Hartford  some  days  were  spent  in  establishing  a  hospital,  where  "I  Avas,  by 
way  of  parentheses,  compelled  to  fight,  iu  the  presence  of  a  great  number  of  Ameri- 
cans, with  three  nurses  who  mutinied."  Ou  the  29th  he  dined  under  a  tent  with 
Washington.  ''  Twenty-five  covers  were  laid  for  officers  of  the  army.  The  table  was 
served  in  the  American  style,  and  pretty  abundantly:  vegetables,  roast  beef,  lamb, 
chickens,  salad  dressed  with  nothing  but  vinegar,  green  peas,  puddings,  and  some  pie, 
a  kind  of  tart  greatly  in  use  in  England  and  among  the  Americans.  They  gave  us  ou 
the  same  plate  beef,  green  peas,  lamb,  etc.  At  the  end  of  the  dinner  some  Madeira 
wine  was  brought,  which  was  passed  around  whilst  driuking  different  healths  to  the 
King  of  France,  the  French  army,"  etc.  (Stone,  ''Our  French  Allies,"  390,  citing 
B  Ian  chard,  146.) 

Chevalier  Lebegue  DuPortail,  being  at  this  time  lieu- 
tenant-colonei  in  the  royal  corps  of  engineers  in  France,  was, 
on  February  13,  1777,  received  by  Messrs.  FrankLn  and  Deane  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States  with  the  rank  of  colonel.  To  the  incidents 
connected  with  his  American  career  reference  is  elsewhere  made.  Ou 
his  return  to  France  he  received  the  grade  of  general  of  brigade,  and 
then  passed  some  time  in  Naples,  where  he  was  employed  in  reorganiz- 
ing the  military  system.  Jn  1788  he  was  made  marechal  de  camp,  and 
in  1790  was  called  to  take  charge  of  the  department  of  war.*  While 
occupying  this  i)ost  he  was  charged  with  relaxing  military  discipline 

*See  index,  title  DuPortail ;  and  see  f»/ra,  Girard  to  Congress,  Jan.  15, 1779;  Frank- 
lin to  Vergennes,  Feb.  2,  1782;  as  to  original  contract  with,  see  entry  made  under 
date  of  Feb.  13,  1777  ;  for  letter  commending  him,  see  Livingston  to  Franklin,  Nov. 
24,  1781.     Du  Portail  was  chief  of  the  engineer  corps  at  the  siege  of  Yorktown. 

405 


§  78.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

by  permitting  his  soldiers  to  visit  political  clubs.  This  exposed  him  to 
royalist  attack,  while  he  encountered  republican  censure  from  his  al- 
leged neglect  of  volunteer  arming  and  of  frontier  defense.  To  the  last 
charge  he  defended  himself  on  the  ground  of  ^Yant  of  funds.  He  was 
condemned  to  death,  but  made  good  his  escape,  and  sailed  for  America. 
After  the  coup  d'etat  of  the  18th  Brumaire  he  took  passage  for  re- 
turn, but  died  on  the  voyage.* 

*  For  correspondence  of  DuPortail  with  Washington,  see  1  Sparks',  Rev.  Cor., 407, 
408 ;  2  id.,  353, 450. 

"  Yon  knew  Dn  Portail,  the  minister  of  war.  He  is  said  to  l>o  violent  in  favor  of  tlie 
rovolntion.  It  is  more  than  a  year  since  I  liave  seen  him,  excepting;  a  short  visit  of 
congratnlation  the  other  day.  My  judgment,  tiierefore,  shoukl  liave  little  weight, 
hut  I  believe  he  is  too  much  the  friend  of  liberty  to  approve  of  the  constitution.  For 
the  rest,  he  has,  as  you  know,  that  command  of  himself  and  that  simplicity  of  exte* 
rior  deportment  which  carry  a  man  as  far  as  his  abilities  can  reach."  (G.  Morris  to 
Washington,  December  1,  1790.) 

Hutchinson,  in  his  Diary,  under  date  of  June  10,  1778,  gives  what  purports  to  be  an 
abstract  of  a  letter  from  DuPortail,  dated  December  11,  in  which  the  American  vsnc- 
cess  is  attributed  not  to  their  own  merits,  but  to  British  mismanagement.  •'  H<'-  con- 
demns the  sending  of  Burgoyne  with  such  an  army  through  a  horrid  wilderness,  where 
the  Americans  could  harrass  and  distress  them,  and  could  tight  in  the  only  way  advan- 
tageous to  them.  He  says  that  after  the  victory  at  Brandy  wine,  and  another  I  forget, 
little  or  no  advantage  was  made  for  want  of  cavalry.-'  According  to  Hutchinson, 
DuPortail  then  goes  on  to  question  ultimate  American  success,  wliich  be  says  could 
be  prevented  if  the  British  could  keep  30,000  men  permanently  on  this  continent; 
and  he  declares  that  tbe  Americans  are  "  used  to  idleness,  to  drinking  tea,  ruiii,  to 
smoking,"  etc,  and  ''  will  not  bold  out  in  war,"  o.ud  have  so  violent  an  antipatliy  to 
the  French,  that  "  that  they  would  sooner  go  over  to  the  British  army  than  light  with 
the  French."  But  Hutchinson  only  claimed  to  give  the  substance  of  this  letter,  and 
remembering  how  inaccurate  wore  English  translations  of  other  French  intercepted 
letters,  and  how  remarkably  this  letter  chimed  in  with  what  Hutchinson  wanted  to 
believe  at  that  time,  we  may  question  whether  in  this  case  Du  Portail  said  all  that 
is  here  imputed  to  him.  He  was  no  doubt  discontented  in  December,  1777,  but  so 
far  from  thinking  French  co  operation  on  the  field  impracticable,  he  did  his  best  to 
bring  it  about.  The  letter  also  is  open  to  the  same  suspicion  of  being  corrupted  in 
translation  and  publication  as  has  since  been  found  justly  to  attach  to  other  alleged 
American  documents  issued  during  the  war  as  "intercepted."  Jones,  in  his  History 
of  New  York,  refers  to  this  very  letter  as  one  put  forth  by  the  British  to  bolster  up 
their  case;  and  then  it  would  not  be  strange  if  it  was  subjected  to  the  same  corrup- 
tion as  other  documents  issued  from  the  same  quarter  for  the  same  purpose.  (2  Hutch- 
inson's Diary,  200.) 

Du  Portail's  "  memorial  "  to  St.  Germain,  as  it  is  called,  is  given  at  length  in  the 
London  Chronicle  for  1782,  vol.  ii,  60,  C5,  76,  84,  92.  As  it  here  appears  it  fills  nearly 
twenty  close  columns,  and  is  just  such  a  document  on  America  as  the  British  minis- 
try would  at  the  time  have  i)repared  on  November,  1778,  when  they  are  dated.  '^  A. 
B."  who  sends  them  to  the  Chronicle,  declares  them  to  be  *'  faithful  translations  of 
copies  of  the  originals  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  war  department 
of  France.  The  arguments  used  are  almost  identical  with  those  which  appear  in  the 
"  intercepted  "  letters  of  Deaue. 

Of  a  curious  and  rare  work  entitled  "  Love  and  Patriotism,  or  the  Extraordinary  Ad- 
ventures of  M.  DuPortail,  late  major-general,"  etc.,  a  copy  is  in  the  library  of  the 
Department  of  State.  It  is  a  stilted  romance,  purporting  to  give  Du  Portail's  advent, 
nres  in  Poland,  where  his  title,  according  to  the  author,  was  Baron  de  Lovinski, 

406 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUUE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  78. 

Axel,  (Oomte  de)  Fersen,  was  born  in  Stockholm  in  1750, 
but  enterin^^  m  early  lire  into  the  French  service,  he  took 
part  in  the  American  camj)aigns  as  colonel  of  the  Koyal  Swedes,  and 
was  aid  to  Eochambeaa  at  the  taking  of  Yorktown,  receiving- at  the 
hands  of  Washington  the  badge  of  the  Cincinnati.*  On  his  return  to 
France  he  was  attached  to  the  royal  family  and  his  attachment  to  the 
queen  was  the  subject  of  much  republican  criticism.  On  June  20, 1701, 
he  undertook  to  procure  a  carriage  for  tiie  king's  escape  from  l^iris. 
On  this  carriage  lie  took  the  place  of  driver. t  At  Bondi,  he  handed 
the  travelers  to  guards,  in  whose  hands  the  arrest  of  Vergennes  took 
place.  After  the  return  of  Louis  to  the  capital  Fersen  was  sent  by 
Louis  on  missions  to  the  King  of  Sweden,  to  the  Emperor  Leopold, 
and  to  the  King  of  Prussia.  After  the  fall  of  the  monarcliy  he  re- 
turned to  Sweden,  where  he  was  received  with  great  favor  by  the  king, 
being  made  marshal  of  Sweden.  In  this  post,  however,  he  incurred 
great  popular  enmity,  and  was  killed  in  a  riot  in  Stockholm  in  1810. 
Fersen,  however,  cannot  be  raidvcd  among  the  French  officers  who 
sought  America  under  the  influence  of  liberal  views.  His  position  in 
the  French  court  was  embarrassing  from  the  peculiar  and  chivalric  nd- 
miration  exhibited  by  him  for  the  queen,  and  for  the  interest  which, 
drawn  by  his  singular  beauty  and  devotion,  she  seems  to  have  taken  in 
him.  His  transfer  to  America,  no  doubt  the  consequence  of  this  awk- 
wardness, was  procured  by  Vergennes. 

Francois  Louis  Teissaidr,  Marquis  de  Fleury,  was  born  on 

Fleury.  *^ 

March  28,  1749,  at  Languedoc.  He  was  one  of  the  party 
which  accompanied  Coudray  in  1770,  having  previously  obtained  the 
rank  of  captain  of  engineers  from  the  French  Government.  In  the 
American  army  he  served  as  volunteer,  receiving  a  commission  as  csbp- 
tain,  and  was  conspicuous  for  his  galiantr}^  at  the  battles  of  Brandy  wine 
and  of  Germantown.  At  Fort  Mifflin  lie  served  during  its  six  weeks' 
siege  as  engineer-in  chief,  was  severely  wounded,  and  showed  in  the 
defense  such  gallantry  and  skill  that  the  rank  of  lieutenant-colonel  was 
conferred  on  him.  At  Monmouth  he  also  distinguished  himself,  and 
in  the  assault  at  Stony  Point,  in  1770,  he  was  first  to  mount  the  ramparts. 


,111(1  whitlier  be  went  after  the  American  Revohition.  A  subplot  details  the  advent- 
ures of  the  danjrlitei' of  Du  Portail,  and  also  of  "  Pulawski,"  who  is  described  as 
liaving  died  at  the  siege  of  Savannah  in  1779,  and  who  appears  to  bave  been  the 
father  of  Lodoiska,  Du  Portail's  wife.  The  volume  was  printed  in  Boston  in  1799,  by 
Samuel  Etheridge.  Its  style  is  so  different  from  that  of  Du  Portail's  other  writings 
to  which  we  have  access  that  (aside  from  the  grotesque  absurdity  of  its  contents) 
its  genuineness  may  be  doubted. 

*  See  his  letters  to  his  father  in  3  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  369,  437. 

t  "Count  Fersen  is  often  using  his  ticket  of  entry;  which  surely  he  has  clear  right 
to  do.  A  gallant  soldier  and  Swede,  devoted  to  this  fair  queen — as  indeed  the  highest 
Swede  now  is  *  *  *  Count  Fersen  does  seem  a  likely  young  soldier,  of  alert,  de- 
cisive ways;  he  circulates  widely,  seen,  unseen;  and  has  business  on  hand."  (2  Car- 
lyle's  French  Rev.,  ch.  3,  p.  8,  in  which  Fersen's  agency  in  the  royal  flight  is  vividly 
told.) 

407 


y^.  78.]  INTRODUCTION  [cHAP.  IV. 

seizing  and  carrying  off  the  British  flag,  for  wliich  act  of  galUmtr}-  he 
received  a  medal  from  Congress.  From  his  own  government  he  received 
the  Gross  of  St.  Louis  and  a  pension  for  his  Yorktown  services.  "  On 
his  return  to  France  he  was  made  colonel  of  a  regiment  at  Pondichery, 
1784,  and  died  in  his  native  land  with  the  rank  of  marechal  de  camp."  * 
Charles  Malo  (Count  de)  Lameth,  a  brother  of  Theo- 
ame  .  dQ^e^  ^.^g  hoYU.  in  Paris  in  1754,  and  died  in  1832.  His 
rank  in  llochambeau's  army  was  that  of  captain,  doing  as  such,  accord- 
ing to  Larousse,  brilliant  service.  Wounded  severely  at  Yorktown, 
he  was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  colonel.  Elected  in  1798  as  a  deputy 
of  the  nobles  of  Artois,  though  he  was  not  one  of  the  nobles  who  first 
joined  the  third  estate,  he  ultimately  took  his  place  in  the  National 
Assembly  as  thus  constituted,  and  in  that  body  advocated  constitu- 
tional reform,  defending  those  reforms  with  much  zeal  and  eloquence. 
As  the  revolution  progressed  he  joined  in  its  defense  in  the  legislative 
hall  until  the  close  of  1701,  when  he  resisted  the  measures  then  in 
i:)rogress  for  the  absolute  deposition  of  the  king.  After  the  massacre 
of  the  Champ-de-Mars  a  reconciliation,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
a  party  of  liberal  conservatism,  took  place  between  the  Lameths,  Du- 
port,  Barnave,  and  their  friends,  and  La  Fayette.  Charles  de  Lameth, 
however,  was  shortly  afterwards  arrested  at  Yvelot  as  unfriendly  to  the 
republic,  but  was  released  by  the  efforts  of  his  brother  Theodore.  He 
then  went  to  Hamburg,  where  he  entered  into  business  with  his  brother 
Alexander;  but  on  the  18th  Brumaire  returned  to  France,  and  after- 
wards he  received  several  important  civil  commands  from  Napoleon. 
Under  Louis  XVIII  he  was  made  lieutenant-general.  He  remained, 
however,  in  retirement  until  1829,  when  he  was  elected  a  member  of  the 
house  of  deputies,  and  was  one  of  the  party  of  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
one  members  who  protested  against  the  ordinances  of  July,  and  adhered 
to  the  revolution  of  July.  But  after  this  revolution  he  is  reported  as 
having  taken  part  in  the  conservative  reactionary  movements  which  cost 
Louis  Philippe  his  throne. 

,    ^      ,,  Alexandre  Theodore  Victor  (Comte  de)  Lameth, 

AlexanaerLamotli.  '  ' 

another  brother,  was  born  in  Paris  in  1700,  and 
died  n  1829.  As  captain  in  a  regiment  of  royal  artillery  he  was  en- 
gaged, with  his  brother,  in  the  American  war,  and  at  its  close  was 
made  colonel  of  cavalry.  A  deputy  from  the  nobles  in  the  States  Gen- 
eral of  1789,  he  was  one  of  the  first  of  his  order  to  unite  with  the  third 
estate,  as  was  the  case,  says  Larousse,  with  mo^:t  of  the  young  nobles 
who  had  engaged  in  the  American  war;  he  united  liberal  views  in  poli- 
tics with  those  philosophical  speculations  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
which  were  in  themselves  incompatible  with  the  ancien  regime.  On  the 
memorable  night  of  the  4th  of  August  he  pronounced  against  feudal 
privileges,  renouncing  those  to  which  he  was  entitled. 

*  Miss  Balch,  1  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  720. 
408 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE    OF    FJiANCE  [§  78. 

But  after  abolishing  almost  all  the  prerogatives  of  monarchy,  he  re- 
fused to  agree  to  the  abolition  of  monarchy  itself;  and  he  entered  into 
relations  with  the  court,  in  which  he  was  for  a  time  induced  to  believe 
that  the  court  would  really  accept  a  system  of  constitutional  reform. 
Occupying  tbis  position,  he  took  part,  nnder  La  Fayette,  in  the  cam- 
l>;iign  of  1792,  and  was  taken  prisoner  with  La  Fayette  by  the  Austri- 
ans,  and  confined  with  La  Fayette  in  the  prisons  of  Namur,  of  Cob- 
lentz,  and  of  Magdeburg.  After  a  severe  imprisonment  of  three  years 
lie  was  released  at  his  mother's  intercession.  Eeturning  to  France 
after  the  18th  Brumaire,  he  was  noniinated  by  Kapoleon  to  several 
(iivil  othces  in  succession.  In  1819  he  was  elected  de])uty  for  the  i)re- 
cinct  of  Seine-Tnferieure,  in  which  capacity,  as  a  member  of  the  left,  he 
vigorously  defended  liberal  politics.* 

It  was  the  misfortune  of  the  Lameths  to  occupy,  as  did  La  Fayette, 
at  the  0])ening  of  the  revolution  a  position  which  was  as  little  accept- 
able to  the  court  as  it  was  to  the  Girondists  or  to  the  ultra  revolution- 
ists. As  against  the  court,  the  Lameths  took  the  ground  that  the  ex- 
ecutive was  to  be  strii)ped  of  absolute  power,  and  was  to  become  a  de- 
partment of  government  co-ordinate  with  legislature  and  judiciary.  As 
against  the  Girondists,  they  insisted  that  the  legislature  should  not  be 
invested  with  absolute  power,  and  should,  under  tbe  supervision  of  an 
independent  judiciary,  be  placed  in  coordination  with  the  executive. 
As  against  the  ultra-revolutionary  school,  they  held,  availing  them- 
selves of  their  American  experience,  that  while  the  people  are  to  rule, 
their  opinions  are  n.ot  to  be  collected  from  clubs  or  from  mass  meetings, 
or  even  from  plebiscites,  but  from  the  action  of  their  legislative  repre- 
sentatives acting  co-ordinately  with  executive  and  judiciary. 

By  the  court  the  brothers  were  denounced  as  speculative  doctri- 
naires; as  deserters  of  their  order  ;t  as  ungrateful  to  the  crown,  from 
whom,  it  was  said,  their  family  had  received  great  favors.  By  tlie  rev- 
olutionary terroristic  tribunals  they  were  proscribed  as  reactionists. 

Lamartine,  whose  devotion  to  the  Girondists  led  him  to  look  with 
unfriendly  eyes  on  all  liberals  who  did  not  accept  the  Girondist  dis- 
tinctive views,  thus  spoke  of  the  brothers  :| 

'*  The  Lameths',  courtiers,  educated  by  the  kindness  of  the  royal  fam- 
ily, overwhelmed  with  the  favors  and  pensions  of  the  king,  had  the  con- 
si)i(Mious  defection  of  Mirabeau  without  having  the  excuse  of  his 
wrongs  against  the  monarchy;  this  defection  was  one  of  their  titles  to 
l)opular  favor.  Clever  men,  they  carried  with  them  into  the  national 
cause  the  conduct  of  courts  in  which  they  had  been  brought  up.  Still 
theirloveof  the  revolution  was  disinterested  and  sincere.  Their  emi- 
nent talents  did  not  equal  their  ambition." 

*  Letters  from  him  r/bea  at  Magdeburg  are  given  in  G   Mag.  of  Amer.    Plistory^ 
463,  446. 
t  Their  father  was  of  the  old  noblesse  ;  their  mother  was  a  sister  of  Marshal  Broglie. 
t  1  History  of  the  Girondists,  Amer.  ed.,  34. 

409 


J  78.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

Bybel,  a  German  author  of  excellent  jiidgmeut,  attributes  tbe  failure 
of  the  Lameths  to  a  want  of  that  dashing  courage  by  which  alone  they 
coukl  have  maintained  their  position  of  antagonism  to  absolutism  either 
in  court,  or  in  legislature,  or  in  mob.* 

Thiers,  from  his  stand-point  of  constitutional  liberalism,  discussed  the 
position  of  the  Lameths  more  in  detail  and  with  a  juster  appreciation. 
In  the  earlier  sessions  of  the  National  Assembly  he  declares,  when  the 
doctrinaire  liberals  Ibrmed  a  distinct  party,  "it  was  said  at  the  time 
that  Dupont  conceived  all  that  ought  to  be  done,  that  Barnave  expressed 
it,  and  that  the  Lameths  executed  it."  t  The  Lameths,  we  are  further 
told,  while  agreeing  with  Mirabeau  as  to  the  necessity  of  preserving 
the  co-ordinancy  of  the  executive  department,  were  unwilling  to  give 
the  king  an  absolute  veto.  He  should  be  entitled  to  a  veto^  they  said, 
but  this  should  be  qualified  or  suspensive.  I  Alexander  Lameth,  fol- 
lowing the  precedent  of  the  American  Constitution,  and  here  again 
differing  from  Mirabeau,  insisted  that  in  the  legislature  should  be  vested 
the  prerogative  of  declaring  war.  §  When,  however,  the  alternative  was 
entire  destruction  of  the  monarchy  or  its  preservation  under  constitu- 
tional checks,  the  Lameths,  true  to  their  principles  of  distribution  of 
power,  took  sides  in  favor  of  limited  monarchy  as  against  the  absolut- 
ism of  legislature  or  of  clubs.  "  Nothing,"  says  Thiers,  ''could  be  more 
praiseworthy  in  the  state  of  affairs  at  that  moment  than  the  service 
rendered  the  king  by  Barnave  and  the  Lameths;  and  never  did  they 
display  more  address,  energy,  and  talent.  ||  They  failed,  but  it  was  in 
part,  at  least,  because  they  tried  to  ap[)ly  a  constitution  which  liad 
been  evolved  from  American  conditions  to  a  people  whose  training  had 
been  that  of  France. 

Theodore  (Oomte  de)  Lameth  was  born  in  Paris  in 
17o6,  and  died  in  18o4.  As  a  cavalry  officer  he  was 
engaged  as  a  French  auxiliary  in  the  Kevolution,  allied  to  La  Fayette 
and  Biron,  sharing  their  liberal  ideas;  and  on  returning  to  France  he 
took  particular  i)aiiis,  as  the  liead  of  a  regiment,  to  avoid  all  collision 
with  the  inhabitants  of  the  village  in  which  he  was  quartered,  in  1790 
the  electors  of  Jura  made  him  president  of  the  department,  and  chose 
him  a  delegate  to  the  National  Assembly,  llis  position  there  was  that  of 
a  constitutionalist,  but  when  the  extreme  zealots  of  the  mountain  gained 
the  ascendancy  he  escaped  to  Switzerland,  and  then  went  to  England. 
Returning  to  France  at  the  beginning  of  the  Consulate,  he  spent  the 


*  Sybel,  1  French  Revolution,  301,  ff. 

As  to  Charles  Lanieth's  motion  to  abolish  the  privnieges  of  the  nobles,   see  1  I):i- 
laurc's  History,  341  ;  as  to  his  duel  with  Castries,  id.,  394,  in  which  ho  was  wounded. 
t  History  of  the  French  Revolution,  Amer.  od.,  78. 
|M,88. 
$  Id.,  143. 
\\Id.,  185. 

410 


CFtAP.  TV.]  ATTITUDE    OF    FRANCK.  [§  7<S. 

remainder  of  his  long  life  in  seclusion,  broken  only  by  a  service  during 
the  hundred  days  iu  the  house  of  deputies. 

Alexandre  Louis  de  Gontaut  Lauzun  (Due  de  Lauzuu), 
atterwards,  on  the  death  oi  his  uncle,  iJuc  de  JJiron,  was  born 
in  Paris  in  1747.  Handsome,  rich,  of  eminently  noble  birtli,  his  youth 
was  spent  in  wikl  dissipation.  He  entered  the  army  in  early  manhood, 
and  became  the  leader  of  the  expedition  which  in  1779  captured  the 
English  settlement  of  Sambre.  When  he  volunteered  for  America  he 
was  promised  an  independent  legion  of  twenty-four  hundred  men.  This 
promise,  however,  the  ministry  was  nniible  to  keep,  and,  with  much 
grumbling,  he  was  obliged  to  see  his  command  reduced  to  four  liundred 
cavalry  and  eight  hundred  infantry.  Even  of  this  force  one-third  was 
left  behind  from  want  of  transports.  When,  liovvever,  in  the  American 
service,  he  distinguislied  himself  as  mucli  by  his  romantic  ideas  of  chiv- 
alry as  by  his  bravery.  i)n  his  return  to  France  he  inherited  from  his 
uncle  the  title  of  Due  de  Biron.  He  was  a  deputy  of  the  nobles  to  the 
States-general  in  1780,  nnd  took  decided  liberal  ground,  and  was  placed 
by  the  revolutionists  in  1792  at  the  head  of  the  armies  of  the  Khine,  and 
in  1793  accepting  otlier  high  command.  But  in  his  political  course  he 
differed  widely  from  LaFayette.  Once  engaged  in  the  rev^olution,  he 
permitted  himself,  with  his  usual  disregard  of  consequences,  to  be  car- 
ried into  some  of  its  wildest  excesses  ;  and  it  was  his  peculiar  misfortune 
that  his  early  intimacy  with  the  Due  d'Orleans  brouglit  upon  him  some 
of  the  shadows  which  hung  so  heavily  on  that  infamous  prince.  He 
was  unquestionably  a  revolutionist,  and  his  courage  and  social  position, 
as  well  as  his  military  skill,  were  of  much  benefit  to  the  revolutionary 
cause.  But  the  recklessness  of  his  temper  i)lunged  him  into  quarrels 
with  his  associates,  and  after  a  violent  collision  with  Rossignol,  the 
Jacobin  general,  he  was  arrested,  tried  in  Paris  on  the  charge  of  dis- 
loyalty, was  convicted,  and  on  January  31,  1793,  executed.  "  He  died 
as  he  had  desired  to  live,  gallant,  i)roud,  and  applauded."*  But  it 
was  this  love  of  applause  that  deprived  his  course  of  consistency  and 
his  character  of  weight,  t 

*  3  Lamartine's  Girondists,  286. 

t  Ho  was  commissioned  to  carry  the  intelligence  of  Cornwallis'  surrender  to  France. 
Ho  left  immediately  after  that  event.     (See  8  Washington's  Writings,  4:W. ) 

To  him  Washington,  on  May  10,  1783,  wrote  as  follows  : 

''Your  particular  services,  sir,  with  the  politeness,  zeal,  and  attention  which  I 
have  ever  experienced  from  yon,  have  made  a  deep  and  lusting  impression  on  my 
mind,  and  will  serve  to  endear  yon  to  my  remembrance.  It  would  have  been  a  great 
satisfaction  to  have  had  further  opportunity  to  give  you  in  person  tho^ assurances  of 
my  regard  could  your  orders  have  permitted  your  longer  continuance  in  the  country." 

Lauzun's  troops  sailed  from  the  capes  of  Delaware  on  May  12,  1783. 

Lanzun  was  in  frequent  correspondence  with  Washington  as  to  the  disposition  of 
the  French  forces  and  their  joint  action  with  the  forces  of  the  United  States.  (7 
Washington's  Writings,  319;  8  id.,  64,  84,  87,  92-99,  li)9.) 

Lauzun's  residence  at  Newport,  in  1780,  was  with  Mrs.  Hunter,  at  No.  264  Thames 
street,  of  which  residence  he  gave  an  animated  account,  and  where  ho  left  a  reputa- 

411 


(^78.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHzVP.  IV. 

Chevalier  du  Plessis  Maudiiit  was  breveted  captain  on 
September  19,  1776;  distinguished  himself  at  Germantowii 
and  Eed  Bank,  and  was  promoted  to  a  lieutenant-colonelcy  on  Novem- 
ber 20,  1777.  In  1779  he  returned  to  France.  His  life  was  one  of  varied 
adventures.  Born  in  1753,  he  was  scarcely  twelve  years  of  age  when, 
escaping  from  the  artillery  school  at  Grenoble,  he  succeeded  in  making 
a  tour  of  the  world.  After  his  return  to  France  he  ardently  embraced 
the  American  cause  and  sailed  for  America,  where,  as  a  volunteer  he 
rendered,  as  is  said,  distinguished  service.  He  was  appointed  in  1787 
to  the  command  of  the  French  regiment  at  Port-au-Prince.  Here  he 
took  strong  reactionary  ground,  and  refused,  in  connection  with  the 
royal  governor,  to  promulgate  the  liberal  edicts  coming  from  France. 
An  insurrection  took  place,  which  he  suppressed  with  great  bloodshed ; 
but  the  insurgents  were  re-enforced  on  March  2,  1791,  by  regiments 
arriving  from   France,  who  ''fraternized"  with  the   insurgents.     In 

tion  for  consideratoness  and  kiuduess  which  ought  to  be  cousidered  iu  conuectiou 
with  his  Paris  social  exphjits. 

Of  Lauzun,  at  this  period,  Fcrscu,  in  a  k^tter  to  his  father  of  November  30,  1782, 
writes: 

*'l  can  not  rej)eat  to  yon  often  enough,  my  dear  father,  how  mnch  I  am  attached  to 
the  Duke  de  Lauzun,  and  how  fond  I  am  of  him.  He  is  the  noblest  sonl  and  most 
straight-forward  character  I  know."     (3  M:ig.  of  Amer.  History,  446.) 

In  volume  4  of  the  American  Historical  Magazine,  page  51,  is  given  a  translation 
of  Lanzun's  narrative  of  the  march  of  Rochamboan's  army  on  Yorktown.  In  tliis 
narrative  there  is  a  vivid  sketch  of  the  encounter  between  Tarleton  and  Lauzun,  as 
well  as  references  to  the  parts  taken  by  Viom6uil  and  Custine.  The  paper  is  marked 
by  Lauzun's  nsual  levity,  brilliancy,  and  self-admiration,  coupled  with  occasional 
depreciatory  remarks  on  the  American  militia. 

Of  the  conduct  of  the  French  officers  in  Rhode  Island  in  1780  Mr.  J.  A.  Stevens,  in 
his  interesting  article  on  the  French  in  Rhode  Island  (3  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  401,) 
thus  writes: 

''The  courtly  polish  of  the  French  contrasted  strikingly  with  the  overbearing  arro- 
gance which  the  colonists  had,  with  rare  exceptions,  met  from  British  ofncers.  A 
Providence  letterof  the  22d,  made  public  in  the  newspapers,  is  explicit  on  this  point. 
'The  French  officers  of  every  rank,'  it  says,  'have  rendered  themselves  agreeable  by 
that  politeness  which  characterizes  the  French  nation;'  and  adds  that  the  'officers 
and  soldiers  wore  cockades  of  three  colors,  emblematic  of  a  triple  alliance  between 
France,  Spain,  and  America.'  The  iiritish  had  destroj^ed  the  forests  on  the  island, 
and  left  no  timber  from  which  even  soldiers'  huts  could  be  built.  Rochambeau  suc- 
ceeded in  obtaining  from  th(3  mainland  material  enough  not  merely  for  the  huts  but 
for  a  large  hall,  which  was  used  for  social  recei)tions." 

Of  Lauzun  at  Yorktown  the  author  of  the  Diary  of  a  French  Officer,  supposed 
to  bo  Du  Bourg  (4  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  etc.,  44(5),  writes  that  on  October  4, 
"after  charging  several  times  at  the  head  of  his  legion,  he  was  ordered  by  M.  de 
Choisej^  to  fall  back,  and  obeyed.  As  ho  was  returning  with  his  troops  he  saw  one  of 
the  lancers  of  his  legion  at  some  distance  engaged  with  two  of  Tarleton's  dragoons. 
Without  a  word  to  any  one  he  lowered  his  guard  and  went  to  his  assistance." 

Lanzun's  Memoirs,  as  they  are  called,  which  were  published  in  Paris  in  1822,  are 
of  doubtful  authenticity,  so  far  as  concerns  the  part  that  relates  to  his  adventures  in 
America.     For  notices  of  Lauzun,  see  Stone's  "Our  French  Allies,"  22, 2'),  299-306. 

412 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  78. 

the  uproar  that  succeeded  Miindiiit  was  massacred  by  his  owu  grena- 
diers.* 

Louis  ]\Iarie  (Vit^oiiite  de)  Xoailh's,  lieiitenaut-colonel  of 

Noiiillt^s.  .  .  .  A'       .  1  •        1^       . 

the  regiment  boissonais,  at  lorktown,  was  born  in  l*;nis 
in  175G.  He  and  La  Fa.yette  married  sisters,  arul  iiom  the  sjune 
stand-point  as  La  Fayette  lie  entered  enthusiastically  in  the  Anunican 
cause.  Wheu  he  returned  to  France  he  took'  strong  liberal  ground  in 
the  States-General,  and  afterwards  a(;cei)tod  high  military  appoint- 
ments. In  1793,  disheartened  al:  the  tone  the  French  revolutionary 
movements  were  then  assuming,  he  revisited  America.  After  the  18tU 
Brumaire  he  returned  to  France,  where  he  was  ai)pointed  brigadier- 
general  to  serve  in  St.  Domingo,  where  he  rendered  singularly  gallant 
services.  He  was  mortally  wounded  on  January  9, 1804,  in  the  capture 
of  a  British  cruiser  near  Havana. 

James  Joseph  (Comte  de)  Vauban,  a  grandson  of  the  great 

Vawban,  .  •i-v-  .,_,-.  *tj 

engineer,  was  born  in  Dijon  in  1^51.  As  lieutenant  m  the 
"  gendarmarie"  of  Luneville  he  was  an  aid  to  Rochambeau  in  America, 
and  was  a  colonel  at  the  beginning  of  the  llevolution.  He  emigrated 
to  Coblentz,  serving  under  Conde,  but  returned  to  France  during  tbe 
Consulate,  in  which,  however,  he  met  with  little  favor.  On  the  resto- 
ration he  fell  into  disgrace  on  account  of  the  publication  of  a  history 
by  him  of  the  Veudean  war,  in  which  he  criticised  severely  the  Bour- 
bon princes.     He  died  in  181G. 

Louis  Philippe  (Count  de)  Segur  was  born  in  Paris  on 
"    '  December  10,  1753.     He  served  under  Eochambeau  in  the 

campaign  of  1782,  On  his  return  to  France  his  attractive  manners  and 
brilliant  talent  drew  to  him  the  attention  of  the  court,  and  in  1784  he 
w^as  sent  as  minister  to  Catherine  II,  by  whom  he  was  very  favorably 
received.  With  his  father  he  became  afterwards  a  supporter  of  ]S"ai)o- 
leon,  and  was  a  member  of  the  imperial  senate  in  1812.  Although  nom- 
inated, on  the  first  restoration,  to  the  house  of  peers,  he  joined  Napo- 
leon during  the  hundred  days,  and  took  then  and  afterwards  opportu- 
nities of  expressing  to  him  devotion.  In  1824  he  published  his'^Me- 
moires,"  a  translation  of  which  a[)peared  in  Boston  in  1825.  He  died  in 
Paris  in  1830.  In  the  first  volume  of  the  "  Memoires"  there  is  an  ani- 
mated account  of  the  American  Kevolutionary  war  from  the  French 
stand-point. 

Antoine  Charles  Viomenilf  was  born  in  the  Vosges 

Autoine  Vioui6nil.  .  -^,^       ^  i  i       i  •      •  .        .        ,   .  . 

in  1728  of  noble  birth  j  was  a  captain  in  his  nine- 
teenth year,  and  was  wounded  during  the  Seven  years'  war,  in  which, 
in  Hanover  and  Corsica,  he  took  an  active  part.     In  1770  he  was  ap- 

*  For  a  notice  of  an  adventurous  attack  by  him,  in  coimection  with  Colonel  Lau- 
rens, on  the  Cbew  House,  at  the  battle  of  Germautown,  see  4  Mag.  of  Amer.  History, 
198. 

t  Washington,  in  a  letter  to  Baron  Vioin6nil  of  December  7,  1782,  says  :  ''  The  many 
great  and  amiable  qualities  which  you  possess  have  inspired  me  v/ith  the  highest 
sentiments  of  esteem  for  yonr  character."     (8  Washington's  Writin<i,s,  3G5. ) 

4:13 


§  78.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CIIAP.  IV. 

poiuted  '^marecbal  de  camp."  In  1780  be  was,  as  is  stated  above,  sec- 
ond in  comuiand  to  Rocbainbeau,  and  was  made  lieutenant-general  in 
1781,  and  was  attacbed  lo  tbe  army  in  Paris,  under  tbe  couunand  of  Mar- 
sbal  Broglie.  He  was  mortally  wounded  wben  defending  tbe  royal 
family  in  tbe  attack  on  tbe  Tuileries  on  August  10,  1792. 

Charles  Josepb  Viomenil,   tbe  brotber  of  tbe 

Charles  Joseph  Viomenil.  i      t  t  f.   -r-i  i  • 

above,  a  marsbal  and  peer  or  France,  was  born  m 
1734,  and  was  also  engaged  in  tbe  Seven-years  war.  He  was  appointed 
brigadier  in  1770  and  marecbal  de  camp  in  1780,  and  was  witb 
liO(ibambeau  in  bis  American  campaigns.  On  bis  return  to  France  be 
received  in  1789  tbe  government  of  Martinique.  From  tbis  office  be 
passed  to  tbe  emigrant  army  raised  by  Conde,  and  tben  entered  into 
Russian  service,  wbere  Paul  conferred  on  bim  tbe  rank  of  lieutenant- 
general.  He  afterwards  took  a  command  under  Jobn  VI  of  Portugal 
in  resisting  tbe  Frencb  invasion  of  tliat  country,  and  tben,  being  re- 
lieved of  command,  settled  for  a  time  in  England.  Returning  in  1814 
witb  Louis  XVIII  be  was  intrusted  witb  tbe  organization  of  tbe  royal 
volunteers  of  Vincennes.  In  1815,  being  tben  eigbty  years  old,  be  re- 
mained to  tbe  last  at  bis  post  in  opposing  Napoleon  on  bis  return  from 
Elba.  On  tbe  second  restoration  be  was  placed  at  tbe  bead  of  a  divis- 
ion and  received  in  1816,  from  Louis  XVIII  tbe  baton  de  marechal. 
He  died  in  1827. 

Jean  Baptiste  Donatien  de  Vimeur  (Comte  de)  Rocbam- 

Ruchambeau.     .  ,  .      _,  _„  -  ,  .       »  .  -i 

beau  was  born  in  1725,  and  came  to  America  under  express 
royal  orders,  and  can  not,  tberefore,  be  classed  among  the  young  volun- 
teer nobles  whose  histories  are  sketched  above.  He  entered  tbe  royal 
service  in  1742.  In  1780  he  was  sent  to  America  as  lieutenant-general 
witb  a  detachment  of  six  thousand  men.  His  arrival  at  Rhode  Island, 
bis  movements  in  combination  witb  Washington,  first  against  Clinton 
and  tben  against  Cornwallis,  are  noticed  in  the  following  correspond- 
ence.* For  bis  services  be  received  tbe  appointment  of  marshal.  Under 
tbe  revolutionary  authorities  he  became  commander  of  the  army  of  the 
north ;  but  his  conduct  being  suspected,  be  was  permitted  to  vindicate 
himself  before  the  Legislative  Assembly.  He  was  at  the  time  held  to 
have  disproved  tbe  charges  against  bim,  and  be  then  retired  to  bis 
estate  near  Vendome.  He  was  subsequently  arrested  under  Robespierre, 
but  on  tbe  death  of  that  tyrant  was  released.  In  1805  be  was  received  at 
court  by  Xapoleon,  who  gave  bim  a  pension,  with  the  cross  of  a  grand 
officer  of  tbe  Legion  of  Honor.  He  died  in  1807.  In  1809  were  pub- 
lished bis  "  Memoires."t 

*  See  titles  Rochambeau,  Washingtou. 

t  See,  for  a  notice  of  Rochambeau,  4  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  15,  where  it  is  said : 
''His  reputation  for  courage  and  dash  required  of  him  no  unusual  exposure  and 
pi  iced  his  motives  for  inaction  beyond  the  range  of  suspicion.  The  gravity  of 
his  cliaracter  and  Ids  remarkable  reticence  impressed  respect  on  his  officers  and  held 
his  troops  in  perfect  control  ;  yet,  while  as  a  disciplinarian  he  was  rigid  and  severe,  he 

414 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE    OF    FRANCE.  [§.  78. 

Peter  Stephen  Duponceau,  wbo,  though  he  did  not  re- 

Duponceau.  />  i         t»  ,       •  ,         . 

turn  to  L ranee  after  the  Kevolution,  may  not  be  improp- 
erly included  in  the  present  section,  was  born  in  the  Island  of  Ite, 
France,  on  June  3,  1700.  His  early  education  was  for  the  priest- 
hood, and  he  went  through  a  thorough  course  of  preparatory  study  in 
general  literature,  as  well  as  in  languages,  both  ancient  and  modern. 
''  After  the  death  of  his  fiither,  Du[)onceau  became  abbe,  but  in  Decem- 
ber, 1775,  he  lefc  his  place,  and,  with  Paradise  Lost  in  one  pocket  and 
a  clean  shirt  in  the  other,  he  took  his  way  on  foot  to  Paris."  *  He  there, 
after  several  literary  ventures,  became  acquainted  with  Beaumarchais, 
who  introduced  him  to  Steuben,  then  preparing  to  go  to  America. 

Ardently  espousing  the  American  cause,  and  adopting  those  liberal 
political  views  to  which  through  his  long  life  he  unflinchingly  adhered, 
Duponceau  came  to  the  United  States  with  Steuben  as  secretary  and 
aid-de-camp,  landing  at  Portsmouth  on  December  1,  1777.  On  Feb- 
ruary 18,  1778,  he  was  made  captain  in  the  American  service.  He 
served  under  Steuben  until  the  close  of  1778,  when  he  was  for  some 
months  confined  in  Philadelphia  by  a  disease  of  the  iungs,  during 
which  period  he  rendered  much  literary  service  to  the  Government, 
.acting  constantl}^  as  interpreter.  This  service  he  continued,  with  an 
intermission, in  the  winter  of  1780-'81,  when  he  joined  Steuben  in  his 
Southern  campaign,  until  October,  1781,  when  he  was  appointed  a  clerk 
in  the  office  for  foreign  affairs,  under  the  direction  of  Robert  li.  Living- 
ston. In  this  position,  which  he  held  until  June  4, 1783,  he  was,  as  the 
records  of  the  department  show,  of  immense  use,  as  he  not  only  was  a 
thorough  linguist,  but  was  a  master  of  international  law.  After  he  left 
the  department  he  entered  on  a  large  practice  at  the  bar,  for  which  his 

ondearedliimself  to  his  troops  by  his  fatherly  and  watchful  care  for  their  personal  com- 
fort." In  2  Bancroft's  History  of  the  Constitution,  appendix,  420,  456,  are  given  two 
characteristic  letters  of  Rochanibean,  evidently  in  his  own  English,  to  Washington. 
The  first,  of  May  12,  1789,  speaks  of  France  as  being  in  a  "  terrible  crisis  of  finance;" 
deplores  Necker's  resignation,  and  speaks  of  Colonne,  who  succeeded,  as  "a  devil  of  a 
fool."  The  second,  of  January  18,  1788,  is  as  follows,  and  is  of  interest  from  what 
wo  learn  in  it  of  De  Grasse  as  well  as  Rochambeau  : 

"Poor  Count  de  Grasse,  our  colleague  in  the  expedition  against  Cornwallis,  is  dead 
the  day  before  yesterday  of  an  apoplexy.  He  had  an  unhappy  end;  the  pains  he 
had  after  his  unlucky  fighting  of  the  12th  of  April,  and  having  been  lately  niarriod 
jigam  to  a  woman  of  bad  character — all  that  occasioned  him  a  great  sorrow.  I 
made  all  it  has  been  in  my  power  to  soften  his  pains,  but  by  the  vivacity  of  his  head 
he  did  take  always  violent  parts,  which  spoiled  all  what  his  friends  could  make  in 
his  favor.  I  long,  my  dear  general,  to  see  your  convention  passed  upon  the  plurality 
of  the  States,  and  to  see  you  President  of  a  Confederation  strongly  settled." 

As  to  Rochambeau's  campaign  in  Rhode  Island,  see  3  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  etc., 
39:};  6  id.,  1;  Sid.,  part  1,  349.  In  4  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  etc.,  205,  293,  441, 
is  given  a  translation  of  the  Diary  of  a  French  Officer,  aid  to  Rochambeau,  pre- 
sumed to  be  the  Baron  Cromot  du  Bourg,  relative  to  Rochambeau's  campaigns  in 
America. 

*  Kapp's  Steuben,  609. 

415 


§  79.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

accomplish  in  en  ts  gave  liiui,  in  some  departments,  a  position  in  wbich 
he  was  at  the  time  without  rivals.  His  publications  were  very  numer- 
ous both  in  law  and  in  general  literature,  and  his  genius  for  languages 
continued  to  exhibit  itself  even  in  extreme  old  age.  When  seventy-live 
he  received  from  the  French  Institute  a  prize  for  a  Memoir  on  the  In- 
dian Languages  of  North  America,  and  in  his  seventy-ninth  year  he 
l)ublished  a  work  of  singular  merit  on  the  Chinese  ISystem  of  Writing. 
While  an  advocate  for  the  adoption  of  the  federal  Constitution,  he  fell 
afterwards  in  the  ranks  of  that  school  of  liberal  constructives  who  ac- 
cepted the  views  of  Jefferson  and  Madison.  By  Jefferson  he  was  offered 
the  position  of  chief-justice  of  Louisiana,  which,  however,  he  declined. 
Great  as  was  his  gift  for  the  mastery  of  languages,  he  never  was  able 
to  lose  his  strong  French  accent;  but  notwithstanding  this  drawback 
he  wrote  and  spoke  English  with  remarkable  elegance  of  style  and  force 
of  argument.  In  character  he  was  singularly  guileless  and  pure.  In 
his  old  age  his  appearance  was  peculiarly  quaint,  and  his  bearing  was 
much  affected  by  his  extreme  short-sightedness,  which,  while  it  was  of 
benefit  to  him  in  the  endurance  of  vision  it  gave  him  in  reading  and 
writing,  somewhat  embarrassed  him  in  his  social  ventures.  He  died 
in  Philadelphia  on  Ai)ril  1,  1844,  and  was  buried  with  honors  which 
showed  how  strong  were  the  veneration  and  honor  felt  for  him  by  tlie 
whole  community.  It  is  proper  that  this  notice  shall  be  here  taken  of 
him,  since  not  only  does  the  Department  of  State  retain  the  records  of 
his  ability  and  industry  as  assistant  to  our  first  Secretary  of  State,  but 
there  was  scarcely  a  question  of  international  law  arising  under  our 
earlier  administrations  as  to  which  he  was  not  consulted.* 

§  79.   John    Kalb,  or    de   Kalb,  as  he  was    after- 

Kalb,  his  early  life.  .  ,,i  t  ,i-,-  -.,, 

wards  called,  was,  according  to  his  biography,  t  the 
son  of  a  German  peasant,  and  was  born  in  1721,  Entering  in  early 
life  in  the  French  army,  and  dropping  his  German  nationality,  he  as- 
sumed the  title  of  "  baron,"  to  which  he  had  no  liereditary  right,  but 
which  he  maintained  with  a  success  the  more  remarkable,  as  such 
titles  were  jealously  watched,  they  being  essential  in  the  French  sys- 
tem to  high  military  promotion.  His  rank,  how^ever,  was  acquiesced 
in  apparently  without  question;  and  it  is  due  to  him  to  presume  that, 
in  view  of  his  subsequent  honorable  and  manly  career,  it  was  in 
some  way  acceded  to  him  by  French  authority.  He  obtained  some 
distinction  in  the  French  service,  and  attached  himself  to  the  mili- 
tary family  of  Count  Broglie,  whose  relations  to  America  are  noticed 
in  a  preceding  section. 

*  To  Duponceau  we  owe  also  a  translation,  with  notes,  of  the  first  book  of'Byuker- 
shoek's  Questiones  Juris  Piihlici,  puLlisbed  in  Pbiladelpbia  in  1810,  under  the  title  of 
a  Treatise  on  tbe  Law  of  War,  translated  from  tbe  original  Latin  of  Cornelius  Cyn- 
kersboek,  etc. 

+  Kapp's  Life  of  Kalb,  N.  Y.,  1889. 

416 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  80. 

^'' '^'7l'iu no7.  ^" '^'"'''''     ^^^^^'  ^'^   ^^^'^  ^^'^^^*  "^'^^   ^^^^^  ^>y    Choiseul,   no 

doubt  on  Bro.i;lie's  suggestion,  on  a  secret  mission 
to  Anierici^  doubtless  as  a  part  of  that  net- work  of  secret  service  by 
wliich  the  ofiicial  dii)loiuacy  of  France  was  underlaid.  Kalb's  in- 
structions, as  given  by  Kapp,  were  as  follows  : 

(1)  M.  (Ic  Kalb  will  repair  to  Aiustcrdam,  aud  there  direct  his  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  rumors  iu  circulation  about  the  Euglish  colonists.  Should  they  appear 
to  he  well  founded,  he  will  iuiUKidiatcly  make  preparations  for  a  journey  to  America. 

(2)  On  his  arrival  be  will  inquire  into  the  intentions  of  the  inhabitants,  and  en- 
deavor to  ascertain  whether  they  are  in  need  of  good  engineers  and  .irtillery  officers, 
or  other  individuals,  and  whether  they  should  be  supplied  with  tlnjui. 

(:5)  He  will  inform  himself  of  their  facilities  for  procuring  supplies,  aud  will  tind 
out  what  quantities  of  munitions  of  war  and  provisions  they  are  able  to  procure. 

(1)  He  will  acquaint  himself  wath  the  greater  or  lessor  strength  of  their  purpose  to 
w'ithdraw  from  the  British  Government. 

(5)  He  will  examine  their  resources  in  troops,  fortified  places,  and  forts,  and  will 
seek  to  discover  their  plan  of  revolt,  aud  the  leaders  who  are  expected  to  direct  and 
control  it. 

Great  reliance  is  placed  on  the  intelligence  and  address  of  M.  Kalb  in  the  pursuit 
of  a  mission  requiring  an  uncommon  degree  of  tact  and  shrewdness,  and  he  is  ex- 
pected to  report  progress  as  often  as  possible. 

Kalb,  according  to  his  biographer,  was  at  first  unwilling  to  accept 
the  trust.  It  was  earnestly  pressed,  however,  on  him  by  Choiseul,  all 
whose  energies  were  Ijent  on  a  recovery  of  French  honor  aud  influence, 
and  who  felt  that  this  could  be  effectively  furthered  by  aiding  the  Col- 
onies in  a  rev^olt,  if  there  was  one,  against  the  mother  country. 

"Do  not,''  said  Choiseul,  ''decline  the  mission  with  which  I  have  intrusted  you.  I 
know  that  it  is  dihicult,  aud  requires  great  sagacity  ;  but  I  have  fixed  my  desire  upon 
yon  after  much  deliberation,  and  know  that  you  will  see  no  reason  to  regret  it.  Ask 
of  me  the  means  which  you  think  necessarj'^  for  its  execution.  I  will  furnish  you 
with  them  all." 

Under  this  influence  Kalb  consented  to  undertake  the  mission,  and  in 
order  at  the  outset  to  familiarize  hinivself  with  the  business  relations  of 
the  Colonies  he  visited  Holland  and  then  England  in  search  of  the  requi- 
site information.  After  a  long  stay  in  Holland  and  a  short  stay  in 
London  he  sailed  on  the  4th  of  October  from  Gravesend  to  Philadel- 
phia, where  he  did  not  arrive  until  January  12, 170S,  after  a  voyage  as 
rough  and  exhausting  as  it  was  protracted. 

Of  Kalb's  letters,  in  which  he  reported  to  Choiseul  his  observations 
on  colonial  conditions,  it  is  requisite  at  present  only  to  give  such  pas- 
sages as  apply  to  the  diplomatic  relations  which  the  United  States 
were  about  to  enter  into.  The  determination  of  the  population  not  to 
pay  the  taxes  imposed  by  the  British  Government  he  reported  on  Jan- 
uary 15,  17G8,  to  be  general  and  resolute. 

"Although  each  province  has  its  own  separate  and  distinct  assembly,  they  all  re- 
fused to  acquiesce  in  the  measure  with  the  same  decision  and  unanimity  as  if  they 
had  jointly  deliberated  upon  their  line  of  action.  Some,  it  is  true,  were  more  violent 
than  others,  but  the  substance  of  each  refusal  was  the  same.     The  most  violent  of 

27WH  417 


§  80.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

these  provincial  assemblies  were  those  of  Boston  and  Philadelphia,  where  the  com- 
missioners of  the  new  impost  were  even  threatened  in  their  persons.  *  *  *  All 
depends  upon  the  policy  of  the  court,  which  promises  to  be  a  conciliatory  one,  as  the 
advantage  derived  by  the  British  people  from  their  connection  with  the  Colonies  is 
too  great  to  permit  the  government  to  stop  short  of  any  efforts  to  preserve  this  inval- 
uable magazine  of  raw  productions  and  this  most  profitable  market  for  its  manufact- 
ures. The  present  condition  of  the  Colonies  is  not  such  as  to  enable  them  to  repel 
force  by  force,  but  their  value  1o  the  mother  country  is  their  best  safeguard  against 
any  violation  of  their  real  or  imaginary  privileges.  In  case  of  an  insurrection  the 
colonists  would  have  nothing  but  their  militia  to  depend  upon,  which,  though  very 
numerous,  is  not  the  best  disciplined.  On  the  other  hand,  the  immense  extent  of  the 
country,  the  want  of  readj'  money,  the  discord  among  the  governors  of  the  various 
provinces,  all  independent  of  each  other,  present  great  obstacles  to  the  formation  of 
an  army  and  the  speedj"^  opening  of  hostilities  in  the  respective  neighborhoods." 

This  was  only  three  days  after  his  arrival  at  Philadelphia.  Id  a  let- 
ter of  January  20,  eight  days  after  liis  arrival,  he  said : 

"These  acts" — those  imposing  duties  on  tea,  pepper,  etc., — "  are  considered  so  many 
violations  of  their  privileges,  and  revive  all  the  grievances  which  the  colonists 
claim  to  have  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the  home  government." 

On  Kalb's  journey  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York,  on  January  25, 
1708,  the  boat  on  which  he  was  crossing  from  Kew  Jersey  to  Staten 
Island  was  cast  adrift  on  the  way,  and  some  of  the  passengers  died  from 
the  exposure,  while  Kalb  lost  his  baggage,  his  money,  and  his  cipher, 
and  was  so  much  injured  by  the  exposure  that  he  was  not  able  to  write 
to  Ohoiseul  until  February  25.     He  then  said : 

*'  The  Colonies  seem  to  intrench  themselves  more  and  more  in  their  system  of  oppo- 
sition and  of  economy.  *  *  *  All  classes  of  people  here  are  imbued  with  such  a 
spirit  of  independence  and  freedom  from  control  that  if  all  the  provinces  can  be 
united  under  a  common  representation,  an  independent  state  will  soon  be  formed. 
At  all  events  it  ivill  certainly  come  forth  in  time.  Whatever  may  be  done  in  London, 
this  country  is  growing  too  jjowerful  to  be  much  longer  governed  at  so  great  a  dis- 
tance." 

From  Boston  he  thus  wrote  on  March  2,  1768 : 

"  I  meet  with  the  same  opinions  as  in  the  provinces  already  visited,  only  expressed 
with  greater  violence  and  acrimony.  *  *  *  'p[^g,  inhabitants  of  this  province 
(Massachusetts)  are  ahnost  exclusively  Englishmen  or  of  English  stock,  and  the 
liberties  so  long  enjoyed  by  them  have  only  swelled  the  pride  and  presumption 
peculiar  to  this  people.  All  these  circumstances  go  to  show  but  too  clearly  that 
there  will  be  no  means  of  inducing  them  to  accept  of  assistance  from  abroad.  In 
fact,  they  are  so  well  convinced  of  the  justice  of  their  cause,  the  clemency  of  the 
king,  and  of  their  own  importance  to  the  mother  country,  that  they  have  never  con- 
templated the  possibility  of  extreme  measures.  *  *  *  I  am  more  and  more  aston- 
ished at  the  immense  number  of  merchantmen  to  be  seen  in  all  the  ports,  rivers,  and 
bays  from  the  Potomac  and  Chesapeake  to  Boston  harbor.  And  in  addition  to  these, 
numberless  ships  are  in  course  of  construction.  What  must  have  been  the  trade  of 
the  Colonies  before  the  disturbances  began  !  " 

From  New  York,  on  April  24,  17G8,  when  on  the  eve  of  his  return 

voyage,  he  thus  wrote  : 

''Even  adu)itting  the  possibility  of  positive  rupture,  the  opening  of  actual  hostili- 
ties between  the  court  and  the  Colonies  can  not  but  be  far  distant,  as  it  presuppose^ 

418 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE    OF    FRANCE.  [§81. 

the  participation  of  the  people,  the  sliipincnt  of  hirge  masses  of  troops,  and  extensive 
levies  of  soldiers  and  sailors.  On  the  otLer  hand,  the  Colonies,  it  hard  Dressed,  would 
make  a  pretense  of  submission  to  gain  time  for  creatin^^  a  navy,  concentrating  and 
disciplining  their  forces,  and  making  other  needful  preparations," 

As  sustaining' Kalb^s  conclusions  as  to  the  unlikelihood  of  immedi- 
ate revolt  of  a  character  which  would  invoke  French  aid,  Kapp,  Kalb's 
biographer,  cites  the  concurrent  opinion  of  Durant,  the  French  ambas- 
sador at  London,  who  on  August  30,  1708,  declared  an  earl^^  revolution 
in  the  Colonies  improbable ;  while  Chatelet,  who  succeeded  Durant, 
told  Choiseul  that  any  premature  hostilities  of  France  against  England 
would  bring  out  the  Colonies  on  the  English  side.  And,  as  elsewhere 
seen,  that  was  at  the  time  the  opinion  of  both  Washington  and  Frank- 
lin, who  would  have  been  ready  at  that  era,  if  there  had  been  a  rupt- 
ure between  France  and  England  and  if  England  took  an  attitude  of 
conciliation,  to  support  England  against  France.* 

Enters  American  .service  in      §  81,  After  Kalb's  rctum  to  Fraucc  he  coutinucd 

unemi^loyed  and  without  marked  promotion  until 
1776.  It  was  not  strange  that  he  should  have  then  looked  forward  to 
employment  in  the  war  which  had  then  actually  begun  in  America.  On 
November  16,  1776,  Silas  Deane  accepted  his  services  as  a  "  gentleman 
of  independent  fortune  and  certain  prospect  of  advancement  here,  but 
a  zealous  friend  of  liberty,  civil  and  religious."  Under  this  arrange- 
ment with  Deane,  Kalb  had  assigned  to  him  the  rank  of  major-general, 
to  date  from  November  6,  1776. 

Lord  Stormont,  British  minister  at  Paris,  was  not  without  informa- 
tion of  Kalb's  projected  adventure.  In  a  letter  quoted  by  Kapp  (p.  86) 
he  advised  Lord  Weymouth,  then  secretary  of  state,  that — 

•'  A  M.  Colbe,  a  Swiss  oflicer,  formerly  in  this  service,  who  married  a  daughter 
of  the  famous  van  Robais,  was  sent  for  to  Foutainebleau,  and  staid  there  some  days. 
It  was  proposed  to  him  that  he  should  go  to  St.  Domingo  and  from  thence  to  North 
America;  he  should  have  the  rank  of  brigadier  and  9,000  to  10,000  livresayear 
during  the  time  of  his  being  euijdoyed.  These  conditions  he  accepted  after  some 
hesitation  and  set  out  from  hence  on  Monday  last.  He  is  accompanied  by  Holtzen- 
dortf,  a  Prussian  by  birth,  who  was  likewise  engaged  by  this  court,  and  has  had  the 
rank  of  lieutenant-colonel  given  him,  with  6,000  livres  a  year.  He  is  not  thought  to 
to  be  an  officer  of  any  distinction,  but  M.  Co]b6  is,  I  am  told,  a  man  of  ability.  He 
was  sent  to  North  America  during  the  ministrj'^  of  M.  de  Choiseul,  who  gave  him  the 
'  ordre  de  m6rite.' '"' 

Stormont  was  probably  misinformed  as  to  ^'  Colbe"  being  "engaged" 
to  go  to  America  by  the  French  court,  since  there  is  no  trace  of  this  in 
either  the  French  archives  or  our  own  or  in  Kalb's  correspondence.  But 
there  is  no  doubt  that  Kalb  obtained  the  assent  of  the  French  authorities 
before  he  accepted  Deane's  offer. 

It  was  not  until  December  7  that,  according  to  Kapp,  the  terras  with 


*  De  Kalb's  mission  of  1768  is  discussed  in  a  paper  translated  by  Sparks  from  a 
manuscript  found  in  the  French  war  department.  (32  Sparks  MSS.  Harvard  Col- 
lege.) 

419 


§  81.]  -  INTRODUCTION.  [cHAP.  IV. 

DeaDe  were  finally  settled  j  and  wben  so  settled  tbey  embraced  stipu- 
lations as  to  La  Fayette,  tben  in  bis  nineteentb  year,  tbougb  a  married 
man  witb  one  cbild.  La  Fayette  was  a  relative  of  tbe  Count  de  Broglie 
and  was  introduced  by  Broglie  to  Deane. 

In  order  to  evade  tbe  observation  of  tbe  Britisb  minister  and  bis 
spies,  tbe  sbipments  destined  by  France  to  America  were  distributed 
in  vessels  at  tbe  ports  of  Havre,  Nantes,  L'Orient,  and  Dunkirk.  Even 
wben  on  tbe  eve  of  embarkation,  bowever,  tbe  vessels  were  subject  to 
various  delays.  Du  Coudray  set  sail,  after  baviug  been  previously  com- 
pelled to  put  back,  on  February  14,  1777.  It  was  not  until  Marcb  25, 
tbat  Kalb  and  La  Fayette  set  sail.  La  Fayette  being  detained  by  the 
intervention  of  bis  family;  but  even  wben  embarked  tbeir  difiQculties 
were  not  over.  La  Fayette,  tbe  sbip  baviug  entered  for  dispatches  tbe 
port  of  St.  Sebastian,  in  Spain,  received  orders  from  Vergennes  to  re- 
turn to  France.  This  be  did,  and  after  arranging  a  settlement  with  bis 
family,  tbe  Victoire,  which  be  bad  chartered,  ser  sail  on  April  20,  having 
on  board,  in  addition  to  La  Fayette  and  Kalb,  a  number  of  French 
officers. 

Of  Kalb's  zealous  and  at  the  same  time  intelligent  attachment  to 
the  American  cause  not  only  bis  services  in  camp  and  council  but  his 
own  statements  bear  witness.  Thus  in  a  letter,  heretofore  unpublished, 
in  the  Department  of  State,  addressed  to  Dr.  Frederic  Phyle,  at  Phila- 
delphia, dated  at  Paris,  December  26, 1775,  be  says  (in  German),  ^'  that 
be  would  be  gladly  apprised  of  a  good  harmony  restored  between  the 
Colonies  and  the  mother  country.  I  hardly  can  believe,"  he  adds,  *'  that 
the  English  ministry  will  })ursue  tbe  rash  and  unjust  measures  and 
push  the  Colonies  to  violent  extremities  to  preserve  their  natural  and 
constitutional  liberties."  But  he  then  goes  on  to  say  (in  German)  tbat  if 
the  war  should  continue  between  Euglaud  and  the  Colonies,  he  would 
cheerfully  put  bis  *' thirty-two  years  "  of  military  experience  at  tbe 
service  of  Congress  if  officially  requested.  This  was  nearly  a  year  be- 
fore be  took  part  in  the  movement,  narrated  in  the  prior  chapter,  to 
make  "  Count  Broglie"  commander-in-chief  of  the  American  armies ; 
and  his  interest  in  that  movement,  taken  up  tem[)oraril3^  ceased,  as  we 
have  seen,  after  be  had  arrived  in  America  and  saw  how  absurd  such  an 
appointment  would  be. 

Both  Marshal  Broglie  and  Count  Broglie  assented  to  Kalb's  course  in 
devoting  himself  to  the  American  cause  under  the  chieftaincy  of  Wash- 
ington, and  it  was  settled  that  be  was  to  have  a  leave  of  absence  for 
two  years  from  tbe  French  service  to  engage  in  the  service  of  America, 
with  the  understanding  that  a  brigadiership  should  be  conferred  on 
him  on  the  first  opportunity  in  France. 

To  the  fidelity,  skill,  and  bravery  shown  by  Kalb  when  in  the  Amer- 
ican service  it  is  not  within  tbe  range  of  the  present  writer  to  pay  a 
detailed  tribute.  His  death  on  the  battle-field,  falling  in  a  gallant 
charge,  after  action  tbe  most  heroic,  was  the  closing  of  a  service  to 
420 


CHAP   IVc]  ATTITUDE    OF    PRANCE.  [§  82. 

America  marked  by  the  same  characteristics  of  heroism,  gallantry,  and 
military  skill.* 
Kalb's  death  is  thus  narrated : 

TTiLLSBOROiiGir,  Srptemher  2,  1780. 

Sir:  Tho  Baron  de  Kalb,  taken  by  iho.  British  and  mortally  wounded,  desired  me 
to  repair  immediately  to  Philadelphia,  to  ^i  ve,  in  his  name,  to  Conj^ress  a  fnll  account 
of  his  transactions  relative  to  his  command  of  the  Maryland  and  Delaware  line,  since 
his  departure  from  Pennsylvania,  to  chnir  his  memory  of  every  false  or  malignant 
insinuation  which  might  have  been  made  by  some  invidious  persons,  but  as  my 
wounds  do  not  permit  me  to  travel  as  fast  as  I  could  desire,  I  thought  it  convenient 
to  prevent  (sic.)  you  sir,  of  ray  repairing  to  Congress  with  all  the  baron's  papers  and 
accounts,  that  no  measure  be  taken  towards  this  affair  before  my  arrival  in  Phila- 
delphia, which  will  be  as  speedily  as  possible.  The  Baron  de  Kalb,  deserted  by  all 
the  militia,  who  tied  at  the  first  lire,  withstood  with  the  greatest  bravery,  coolness, 
and  intrepidity,  with  the  brave  Marylanders  alone,  the  furious  charge  of  the  whole 
British  army;  but  superior  bravery  was  obliged  at  length  to  yield  to  superior  num- 
bers, and  the  baron,  having  had  his  horse  killed  under  him,  fell  in  the  hands  of  the 
enemy,  pierced  with  eight  wounds  of  bayonet  and  three  musket-balls.  I  stood  by 
the  baron  during  the  action  and  shared  his  fate,  being  taken  by  his  side,  wounded 
in  both  arms  and  hands.  Lord  Cornwallis  and  Rawdon  treated  us  with  the  greatest 
civility.  The  baron,  dying  of  his  wounds  two  days  after  the  action,  was  buried 
with  all  the  honors  of  war  and  his  funeral  attended  by  all  the  officers  of  the  British 
army.  The  doctor  having  reported  to  Lord  Cornwallis  the  impossibility  of  curing 
my  wounds  in  that  part  of  the  continent,  he  admitted  me  to  my  parole,  to  go  to  Phil- 
adelphia, for  effecting  an  exchange  between  me  and  Lieutenant-Colonel  Hamilton, 
prisoner  of  war  at  Philadelphia.  But,  sir,  being  informed  by  Governor  Nash  that 
this  Mr.  Hamilton  is  a  man  of  very  great  influence  among  some  Indian  tribes,  and 
that  this  exchange  may  prove  of  dangerous  consequences,  I  submit  in  that  case  to  drop 
the  matter  altogether,  being  unwilling  that  my  exchange  should  be  attended  with 
the  least  injury  to  our  cause,  and  should  I  not  be  able  to  negotiate  another  exchange 
I  will  fulfill  the  tenor  of  my  parole. 

With  the  highest  esteem  and  consideration,  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  ex- 
cellency's most  obedient  and  most  humble  servant, 

Le   Ch.  DUBUYSSON.t 

^    ,  §  82.  Coudray,  or  Du  Coudray,  an  eminent  French  artil- 

Coudray.  i  /./-.  i 

lery  othcer,  whose  name  appears  frequently  in  the  following 
volitmes,  was  selected  by  St.  Germain,  secretary  of  war,  in  1775,  to 
visit  the  French  arsenals,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  what  muni- 
tions of  war  could  be  drawn  from  for  American  purposes  in  case  it  was 
determined  to  render  aid  to  America.  In  September,  177G,  he  visited 
Strasburg,  Dijon,  Metz,  Besau9on,  Charleviile,  and  other  posts,  where 
he  selected  "two  hundred  4-pounder  field  pieces,  with  a  hundred  thou- 
sand balls,  besides  thirty  thousand  stand  of  small-arms  and  ammunition, 
and  four  thousand  tents."  | 


*As  to  the  claim  of  Kalb's  representatives  against  the  United  States,  see  infra, 
Luzerne  to  Livingston,  April  17,  1782  ;  Livingston  to  Luzerne,  June  7,  1782  ;  Luzerne 

tThis  interesting  letter  is  in  Papers  of  Continental  Congress,  No.  78,  vol.  7,  Depart- 
ment of  State,  and  has  never  been  published.      It  escaped  the  notice  of  Kapp  when 
preparing  his  life  of  Kalb. 
to  Congress,  April  28,  1784  ;  and  also  Kapp's  life  of  Kalb. 

tKapp's  Kalb,  84;  see  also  Coudray's  Memoirs,  MSS.,  Department  of  State. 

421 


§  83.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

Sartorie,  secretary  of  the  navy,  joined  in  the  same  movement;  and, 
in  order  to  throw  the  British  agents,  who  were  placed  on  watch  in  every 
port,  ofif  their  guard,  the  vessels  employed  had  manifests  of  San  Do- 
mingo, while  the  officers  engaged  had  given  to  them  advanced  rank,  in 
view  of  their  colonial  service  as  thus  proclaimed. 

The  Amphitrlte^  in  which  General  Dn  Coudray  and  his  suit  w^ere  to  be 
carried,  set  sail  from  Havre  on  December  14,  1776,  bat,  in  consequence 
of  the  bad  equipment  of  the  ship,  which  made  her  unfit  for  the  sea, 
returned  after  a  few  days,  as  is  detailed  in  Du  Coudray's  Memoirs, 
to  L'Orient.  It  was  not  until  February  14,  1777,  that  the  Amphi- 
trite  finally  sailed,  Du  Coudray  having  arranged  the  cargo  and  pas- 
sengers to  his  own  mind,  and  having  at  last  overcome  the  difficul- 
ties incident  in  part  to  the  system  of  duplicity  adopted  by  the  French 
court,  in  part  to  the  mismanagement  of  Beaumarchais.  He  arrived  in 
Philadelphia  towards  the  end  of  June,  when  he  applied  for  the  rank  of 
major-general,  assigned  him  by  Deane,  to  be  accompanied  with  the 
command  of  the  engineers  as  well  as  of  the  artillery.  But  these  pre- 
tensions met  with  immediate  and  vehement  resistance.  Knox,  who, 
though  without  military  training,  had  a  strong  hold  on  the  army,  re- 
signed when  he  found  that  he  was  to  be  outranked  by  J)u  Ooudraj^, 
and  was  sustained  by  resignations  by  Sullivan  and  Greene.  Congress, 
to  settle  matters,  refused  to  acce})t  these  resignations,  and  also  declined 
to  assign  Du  Coudray  to  the  artillery,  giving  him  instead  of  the  rank 
of  major-general  that  of  inspector-general  of  ordnance.  In  this  he 
acquiesced,  and  applied  for  i^ermission  to  join  the  army,  just  before  the 
battle  of  Brandy  wine,  as  a  volunteer  captain  of  engineers.  On  Sep- 
tember 1(3,  however,  he  was  drowned  in  the  Schuylkill. 

A  very  voluminous  paper  from  Du  Coudray,  vindicating  himself  from 
the  charge  of  fractiousness  in  the  movements  connected  with  his  em- 
barkation, was  sent  by  him  to  Congress,  and  is  now  on  file  in  the  De- 
partment of  State.  A  part  of  this  paper  is  given  at  pages  353  ff.  of 
Doniol's  work,  heretofore  cited  ;  and  the  position  taken  by  Doniol,  as 
well  as  by  other  French  critics,  is  that  Du  Coudray,  while  an  engineer 
of  great  ability,  was  a  mere  soldier  of  fortune,  ambitious  of  rank  and 
money,  without  any  enthusiasm  in  the  American  cause,  and  requiring 
from  Congress,  in  a  tone  approaching  to  insolence,  concessions  incom- 
patible with  their  independence,  and  with  the  respect  due  the  officers 
of  the  army  as  then  constituted.*  It  was  to  the  arrogance  of  Du  Cou- 
dray's course  that  Lafayette  traced  much  of  the  distrust  shown  by  Con- 
gress of  other  French  officers  who  came  over  under  engagements  by 
Deane.f 

'     §  83.  Conrad  Alexander  Gerard  was  the  first  minister  from 

any  foreign  court  to  the  United  States.     When  the  American 

commissioners  went  to  Paris,  in  the  year  177G,  he  was  principal  secre- 

*  See  also,  Loin^uie's  Life  of  Beauiuarcbais,  ll'Sff. 

t  For  correspoudeuce  as  to  Coudray,  see  index,  title  Coudray. 

422 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  84. 

tary  to  tlio  coaucil  of  state,  and  on  terms  of  the  strictest  intimacy  and 
confidence  with  Count  de  Yergennes.  tlie  minister  of  foreign  attairs. 
Under  the  auspices  of  that  minister,  and  in  (^omiert  with  him,  M.  Gerard 
early  took  a  strong  interest  in  tlie  concerns  of  the  United  States,  and 
abetted  the  cause  of  their  independence.  He  negotiated,  on  tlie  part 
of  the  French  Government,  the  first  treaties  of  alliance  and  commerce 
with  the  United  States,  signed  on  the  0th  of  February,  1778,  by  him 
for  one  of  the  contracting  parties,  and  by  Franklin,  Deaue,  and  Lee  for 
the  other. 

Uis  knowledge  of  American  affairs,  and  his  general  ability,  pointed 
him  out  as  the  most  suitable  person  to  represent  the  French  court  as 
minister  to  Congress.  He  came  over  to  this  country  in  the  fleet  with 
Count  d'Estaing,  and  arrived  in  Philadelphia  about  the  middle  of  July, 
1778.  After  discharging  the  duties  of  a  minister  plenipotentiary  for 
more  than  a  year  in  a  manner  highly  acceptable  to  Congress  and  the 
whole  country,  as  well  as  to  his  own  gov^ernment,  he  asked  his  recall, 
and  took  his  final  leave  of  Congress  on  the  17th  of  September,  1779. 
He  returned  to  Europe  in  the  same  vessel  which  took  out  Mr.  Jay  as 
minister  plenii)otentiary  to  the  court  of  Spain.* 

^  84.  Caisar  Anne  de  la  Luzerne  followed  M.  Gerard  as 

Luzerne.  •     •    ,  t       •        j^       i  -  ,.  t^ 

minister  plenipotentiary  from  France  to  the  United  States. 
He  served  with  distinction  in  the  Seven-years'  war,  and  in  1770  was  ap- 
pointed envoy  extraordinary  to  America,  and  arrived  in  Philadelphia 
on  the  -ilst  of  September,  1779.  As  Gerard  was  still  discharging  the 
functions  of  his  ofhce,  the  Chevalier  de  la  Luzerne  did  not  receive  his 
first  audience  of  Congress  till  the  17th  of  November. 

From  that  time  to  the  end  of  the  war  he  applied  himself  sedulously 
to  the  duties  of  his  station,  and  by  the  suavity  of  his  manners,  as  well 
as  by  the  uniform  discretion  of  his  official  conduct,  he  won  the  esteem 
and  confidence  of  the  American  people.  His  eftbrts  were  all  directed 
to  the  support  of  the  alliance,  on  the  principles  of  equity  and  the  broad 
basis  of  reciprocal  interests  established  in  the  treaties. 

After  remaining  in  the  United  States  more  than  five  years  he  obtained 
permission  to  visit  France,  although  he  did  not  then  resign  his  commis- 
sion as  minister.  A  few  months  afterwards,  however,  he  wrote  to  Mr. 
Jay,  then  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  that,  being  designed  by  the  king 
for  another  appointment,  his  character  as  plenipotentiary  to  the  United 
States  had  ceased.    M.  Barbe  Marbois,  who  had  been  the  secretary  of 

*  5  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  553. 

For  Gerard's  diplomatic  correspondeuce  iu  respect  to  the  United  States,  see  index- 
title  Gerard. 

Gerard's  defect  as  an  adviser  of  Vergenues,  was  the  suddenness  with  which   he 
reached  conclusions  he  was  obliged  afterwards  to  abandon.     On  Auo-ust  22   1778 
for  instance,  he  wrote  to  Vergennes  that  Washington,   in  the  battle  of  Monmouth, 
acted  with  injustice  towards  Charles  Lee,  though  this  opinion  he  afterwards  took 
back. 

423 


§  84.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

legatiou  during  the  whole  of  M.  de  la  Luzerne's  residence  in  America, 
succeeded  him  as  charge  d'affaires.* 

He  was  transferred  on  leaving  the  United  States  to  the  post  of  am- 
bassador from  France  to  the  court  of  London  in  January,  1788.  He 
remained  there  till  his  death,  on  the  14th  of  September,  1791,  at  the  age 
of  fifty  years.f 

The  following  letters  relate  to  Luzerne  taking  leave  of  his  mission 
to  the  United  States.  It  is  proper  to  say  that  his  whole  course  in  the 
United  States  won  the  affection  as  well  as  the  respect  of  the  commun- 
ity in  which  he  resided.  His  diplomatic  pa^iers  are  referred  to  in  the 
index,  title  Luzerne. 

L\izerne  to  Jay,  Se.creiarij  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

[Translation  ] :;: 

Paeis  (date  iiucertain),  1787. 

Sir:  I  dare  not  flatter  myself  that  your  excellency  has  any  recollection  of  a  man 
who  bad  the  beuetit  of  your  accjnaiiitance  but  a  few  days,  and  even  at  a  time  when 
be  could  not  express  himself  in  your  language. 

I  arrived  in  America,  sir,  \vhen,  after  baving  rendered  the  most  important  services 
to  the  Confederacy,  and  sustained  with  the  greatest  distinction  the  office  of  Presi- 
dent of  Congress,  that  body  bad  intrusted  you  with  the  important  care  of  conducting 
their  affairs  in  Spain  and  in  the  i)rincipal  courts  of  Europe. 

I  have  resided  in  America  five  years  as  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  king  to  Con- 
gress; and  though  indeed  I  can  not  but  be  well  satisfied  with  the  kindness  and  the 
confidence  which  that  illnstrious  body  have  ever  shown  me,  I  have  always  regretted 
that  you  were  not  during  that  period  one  of  its  members.  You  departed  froili  Europe 
when  1  returned  to  it.  At  that  time  I  flattered  myself  thatl  should  again  see  you  in 
America  and  resume  my  duties  there;  but  bis  majesty  has  thonghtp  fit  to  give  me 
another  destination.  Will  you  have  the  goodness  to  present  to  Congress  my  letters 
of  recall,  and  to  express  to  that  body  for  me  the  high  sentiments  of  respect  and  vener- 
ation with  which  I  have  long  regarded  them. 

Allow  me  also  to  request  your  excellency  to  accept  the  assurances  of  the  attachment 
and  consideration  with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  etc., 

Luzerne. 

Luzerne  to  the  President  of  Congress. 
I  Translation.]  § 

Annapolis,  January  29,  1784. 
Sir:  I  have  the  last  year  presented  to  Congress  several  notes  respecting  which  no 
answer  has  been  given  me.  I  bave  reason  to  believe,  bowever,  that  it  has  taken 
resolutions  on  many  of  these  notes.  Not  to  importune  Congress  by  reiterations.  I 
pray  you  to  be  pleased  to  inform  me  of  what  has  passed  on  this  subject,  and  especially 
with  regard  to  the  ratification  of  the  contract  entered  into  between  the  king  and  the 
United  States  for  the  various  loans  which  bis  majesty  has  made  tbem  and  concern- 
ing the  measures  taken  for  the  payment  of  the  interest  on  the  sums  lent  to  the  United 
States  by  his  majesty  or  for  which  he  has  become  responsible. 
I  bave  the  honor  to  be,  etc., 

Luzerne. 

*  5  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  G49. 

From  him  the  county  of  Luzerne  in  Pennsylvania  was  named, 
t  See  index  to  Clintou-Cornwallis  Controversy,  title  Luzerne. 
X  6  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  138. 
^/&j^.,  128. 
424 


CHAP.  IV.]  ATTITUDE  OF  FRANCE.  [§  84. 

Of  Luzerne's  course  in  England  WiJixull  tlins  speaks :  "  I  lived  in  habits  of  great  in- 
timacy with  him  from  his  lirst  arrival  in  Enghmd  nearly  to  the  termination  of  his  em- 
bassy. Nature  had  not  bestowed  on  him  any  external  advantages.  Neither  his  person, 
manners,  nor  address  seemed  to  be  adapted  for  a  dravriug-room,  and  his  sight  was  so 
defective  that  it  approached  to  blindness.  Scarcely  could  ho  distinguish  objects  unless 
brought  close  to  his  eye.  But  he  compensated  for  these  cori)oreal  defects  by  a  sound 
clear  understanding  and  habits  of  business.  Though  he  seldom  attempted  to  speak 
English  he  understood  the  language,  having  resided  a  long  time  in  America  .as 
minister  from  France  during  the  war  carried  on  against  the  transatlantic  Colonies. 
Such  a  mission  did  not  seem  to  lay  a  good  foundation  for  his  favorable  reception  here, 
or  to  form  a  recommendation  at  St.  James.  It  is  a  fact  that  on  the  day  when  he  went 
to  the  palace  to  be  presented  to  the  king  he  wore  in  his  button-hole  the  insignia  of 
the  order  of  Cincinnains,  which  had  been  conferred  on  him  by  Washington.  For- 
tunately, arriving  before  his  majesty  came  out  of  his  closet  to  connnence  the  levee, 
some  of  his  friends  had  time  to  represent  to  the  new  ambassador  the  impropriety  of 
appearing  in  the  presence  of  George  the  Third  decorated  with  an  order  instituted  by 
one  of  his  former  subjects.  La  Luzerne  instantly  took  it  off  and  put  it  in  his  pocket. 
As  he  was  unmarried,  being  a  knight  of  Malta,  the  Viscountess  de  la  Luzerne,  a 
daughter  of  the  Count  de  Montmoriu,  who  had  married  the  ambassador's  nephew, 
came  over  from  France  to  do  the  honors  of  his  house.  After  the  king's  first  great 
intellectual  malady  in  June  1789,  La  Luzerne  gave  a  splendid  entertainnient  in  com- 
memoration of  his  recovery.  The  queen  was  present  at  it,  with  her  court ;  and  during 
supper  the  viscountess,  as  representing  the  French  ambassadress,  stood  behind  her 
majesty's  chair.  Within  five  years  afterwards  I  went  to  pay  my  respects  to  her  at  a 
small  lodging  situate  in  George  street,  Portman  square,  just  behind  the  noble  mansion 
which  the  ambassador  had  occupied  in  that  square.  She  received  me  in  a  room  where 
stood  two  neat  white  beds,  and  appeared  to  support  with  great  equanimity  her  change 
of  fortune.  But  she  did  not  long  survive,  and  I  have  heard  that  she  accelerated  her 
own  end,  which,  I  believe,  took  place  at  Rouen.  She  was  young,  amiable,  and  of  most 
engaging  manners.  Her  father,  Count  de  Montmoriu,  perished  early  in  the  revolution. 
Nor  did  the  ambassador  himself  live  to  witness  the  execution  of  his  unfortunate 
master.  In  1792  he  was  attacked  with  a  paralytic  complaint,  for  which  he  repaired 
to  Soathamptou,  where  he  expired.  The  calamities  of  his  country,  together  with  his 
own  individual  misfortunes  flowing  from  that  source,  embittered  his  latter  days  and 
hastened  his  dissolution.  His  remains  being  sent  over  to  Caen,  in  Normandy,  for  the 
purpose  of  interment,  the  revolutionary  populace  of  the  city  precipitated  his  body 
into  the  river  Orne,  which  flows  through  that  place."     (2  Wraxall's  Memoirs,  245.) 

'*  The  Marquis  de  la  Luzerne  had  been  for  many  years  married  to  his  brother's  wife's 
sister  secretly.  She  was  ugly  and  deformed,  but  sensible,  amiable,  and  rather  rich, 
When  he  was  ambassador  in  London,  with  10,000  guineas  a  year,  the  marriage  was 
avowed,  and  he  relinquished  his  cross  of  Malta,  from  which  he  derived  a  handsome 
revenue  for  life,  and  which  was  very  open  to  advancement.  Not  long  ago  she  died. 
His  real  afi'ection  for  her,  which  was  great  and  unfeigned,  and  probably  the  loss  of 
his  order  for  so  short-lived  a  satisfaction,  has  thrown  him  almost  into  a  state  of 
despondency.     He  is  now  here."     (Jeft'erson  to  Madison,  Paris.  July  81,  1788.) 

For  the  United  States  to  own  ficjheries  and  conquer  Canada  would  be  to  destroy 
French  fishing  rights  and  render  America  more  dangerous  to  France  than  England. 
He  desires  to  obtain  Cape  Breton  for  France.*  (Luzerne  to  Vergeunes,  January  11, 
1782.) 

*  ''The  Count  de  la  Luzerne  is  an  indolent,  pleasant  companion,  a  man  of  honor, 
and  obstinate  as  you  please,  but  he  has  somewhat  of  the  creed  of  General  Gates,  that 
the  world  does  a  great  part  of  its  own  business  without  the  aid  of  those  who  are  at 
the  base  of  affairs."     (Gouverneur  Morris'  Diary,  28,\) 

425 


§  85.]  INTEODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IV. 

A  curious  letter  from  Luzerue  to  Vergennes  of  May  13,  1781,  as  to  loans  to  Sullivan, 
is  given  in  11  Magazine  of  American  History,  etc.,  158. 

In  the  same  volume,  page  157,  is  given  a  statement  from  Englisli  sources  as  to  the 
loyalty  of  Sullivan. 

See  on  this  topic,  id.,  353,  for  answer  to  above. 

In  the  Diary  of  Gouverueur  Morris  (1889)  will  be  found  several  interesting  references 
to  Luzerne. 

Id  studying  Luzerne's  correspondence  it  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  on  the  question 
of  Canada  and  the  fisheries  he  was  by  no  means  in  accord  with  Vergennes.  Both 
Luzerue  and  Marbois  were  anxious  for  the  recon(|uest  of  maritime  Canada,  and  in 
this  way  of  obtaining  at  least  a  share  in  the  adjacent  fisheries,  and  they  consequently 
would  not  acquiesce  in  the  claims  of  the  United  States  to  any  exclusive  right  in  these 
fisheries.  Vergennes  was  opposed  to  an  attempt  to  reconquer  Canada,  and  ultimately 
at  least  made  no  opposition  to  the  claims  set  up  to  the  fisheries  by  the  United  States. 

Marbois.  ^  §5,  Marbois  (Barbe  Marbois)  was  born  in  January,  1745, 

and  died  in  January,  1837.  Atter  several  minor  diplomatic 
ai)pointments  in  Germany  be  became  secretary  to  the  French  legation 
in  the  United  States  aud  subsequently  French  consul-general  at 
Philadelphia,  where  he  married  a  daughter  of  Governor  Moore,  of 
Pennsylvania.  He  was  transferred  in  1785  to  the  governorship  of 
San  Domingo,  returuiug  to  France  in  1790.  Under  the  republican 
regime  he  was  banished  to  Guiana;  but  he  was  recalled  in  1801 
and  became  minister  of  finance.  In  this  capacity  he  made  the  sale  of 
Louisiana  to  the  United  States  for  75,000,000  francs,  when  he  was  au- 
thorized by  Napoleon  to  sell,  if  he  could  do  no  better,  for  50,000,000 
francs.  He  remained  in  office,  with  one  or  two  intermissions,  until  the 
close  of  the  empire,  and  in  1814  voted  for  the  recall  of  the  Bourbons. 
Placed  at  the  head  of  the  office  of  accounts  by  Louis  XVIII,  he  was 
ordered  out  of  Paris  by  Napoleon  in  the  hundred  days,  but  resnmed 
his  office  on  the  return  of  Louis  XYIII.  To  Louis  Philippe,  in  whose 
reign  he  died,  he  took  the  oath  of  allegiance.  Among  his  works  are 
Reflexions  sur  la  colonic  de  Saint-Domingue,  179G;  Oomplot  d^Arnold 
et  Sir  Henry  Clinton,  etc.,  1816;  Histoire  de  la  Louisiane  et  de  la  ces- 
sion de  cette  colonic,  etc.,  1828.* 

Marbois'  diplomatic  correspondence  is  referred  to  in  the  index,  title  Marbois.  Under 
date  of  March  13,  1782,  will  be  found  the  famous  letter,  imputed  to  him,  which  was 
used  to  show  the  wint  of  candor  of  France  to  America. 


*  See  Larousse's  Diet.,  tit.  Barbd-Marbois. 
42G 


CHAPTER  V. 

ATTITUDE  OF  SPAIN  TO  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Willi.,,  to  keep  up  American        §  ^^'  Spalu  took  towavds  Auieiica  three  (lis- 
revolt, imt  not  to  acknowi-     ^^^^^.^  successive  policies  duiiuff  the  revolution-    ^ 

edge  independence.  i  =» 

ary  war.  The  first  was  in  177C,  when,  with  the 
Philippines  again  threatened,  Gibraltar  festering  in  her  side,  with  the 
humiliations  of  the  Seven-j'ears'  war  becoming  more  unbearable  with 
time,  and  with  the  menace  to  hor  American  possessions  which  was 
given  by  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  British  Colonies  to  the  north, 
she  was  glad  to  contribute,  so  far  as  she  could  do  so  without  public 
rupture,  to  keeping  these  Colonies  in  a  state  of  permanent  disaflection 
to  the  mother  country.  Under  this  policy  she  gave,  secretly  througli 
France,  the  million  of  francs  to  be  hereafter  noticed  as  forming  part  ot'  — 
the  contribution  of  three  millions  Vergennes  handed  to  the  American 
commissioners.  But  this  policy  was  conditioned  on  the  Colonies  re- 
maining subject  to  Great  Britain,  though  disaffected,  so  that  both 
they  and  the  mother  country  would  be  unlikely  to  attempt  aggressions 
on  Spanish  America.  As  the  revolutionary  war  progressed,  and  tlie 
issue  was  independence,  Spain  was  no  longer  inclined  to  help  on  a 
movement  which  would  be  a  dangerous  x)recedent  to  her  own  colonies, 
and  wliich,  if  successful,  would  build  up  on  her  borders  a  sovereignty 
in  its  political  principles  very  hostile  to  her  traditions,  and  occupied  by 
a  peoi)le  whose  energy  and  aggressiveness  would  be  made  more  formida- 
ble by  a  successful  war.  This  was  the  second  attitude  assumed  by 
Spain  to  our  Revolution ;  an  attitude  of  annoyance,  of  displeasure,  of 
anxiety,  causing  her  to  repel  any  advances  made  by  us  with  a  sullen 
though  adroit  persistency  which  will  be  exhibited  in  detail  in  the  fol- 
lowing correspondence.  The  third  was  when  she  was  drawn  by  the 
force  of  events  into  the  whirliiool  of  the  war  which  France  was  first  to 
engage  in  against  Great  Britain.  Spain  felt  that  she  had  an  oppor- 
tunity in  this  war  to  avenge  her  wrongs;  to  recover  Gibraltar;  to  rise 
again  to  the  position  of  a  first-class  power.  Of  course  America  be- 
came for  this  purpose  an  essential  ally.  To  the  American  waters,  for 
blockading  as  well  as  for  offensive  and  protectiv^e  purjmses,  a  large  part 
of  the  British  navy  was  drawn ;  for  American  warfare  all  the  land 
force  Britain  could  raise  was  required.  But  it  was  with  an  ungracious 
air  that  Spain  yielded  to  this  alliance;  nor  did  she  yield  until  an  ofifer 
on  her  })art  to  mediate  had  met  with  a  curt  rebuff  from  the  British  min- 

427 


§  86.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  V. 

istiy.*  Even  after  Spain  acceded  to  the  alliance,  the  American  minis- 
ters, wlien  admitted  to  the  court,  found  themselves  received  there,  as 
well  as  in  Spanish  society  generally,  with  a  chill  which  told  them  how 
much  their  x^olitical  principles  were  disliked,  and  how  detrimental  to 
Spanish  colonial  interests  was  regarded  the  example  of  independence 
they  set.t  And  to  this  sulky  discontent  of  Spain  may  be  traced  in  part 
that  want  of  effective  co-operation  on  the  West  India  waters  which 
contributed  to  Rodney's  victory  of  1782,  and  consequently  raised  the 
siege  of  Gibraltar.  In  another  important  matter  this  unfriendliness  of 
Spain  operated  to  her  disadvantage  and  greatly  to  t!ie  advantage  of 
the  United  States,  since  Jay  had  been  instructed  to  surrender  the  nav- 
igation of  the  Mississippi  as  the  price  of  effective  Spanish  aid.|  As  it 
was,  the  entrance  of  Spain  on  the  arena  as  a  belligerant  tended  not  a 
little  to  the  complication  of  the  peace  negotiations,  since  it  put  France 
In  the  difficult  position  of  arbiter  between  two  allies,  and  gav^e  the 
British  envoys  the  opportunity  to  sow,  as  far  as  they  could,  distrust  in 
America  as  to  the  imi)artiality  of  France. 

From  the  third  volume  of  Douiol's  couiprehensive  work  on  the  "Par- 
ticipation de  la  France  a  I'etablissement  des  iStats  Unis,"  published  in 
1888,  we  are  able  to  learn  for  the  first  tiine  the  extreme  peril  of  France 
in  1778-'79.  When  Vergennes  advised  the  recognition  of  the  independ- 
ence of  the  United  States,  it  was  on  the  same  grounds  that  Canning 
advised  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  Spanish  South 
American  States  many  years  afterwards.  The  fair  distribution  of 
power  in  the  civilized  world,  which  was  threatened  in  the  latter  period 
by  the  Holy  Alliance,  was  threatened  in  the  former  period  by  the  as- 
sumption of  maritime  supremacy  by  Britain.  In  each  the  object  was 
to  call  up  a  new  sovereignty  in  America,  so  as  to  check  an  undue  con- 
centration of  sovereignty  in  Europe.  Undoubtedly  Yergennes  was 
aided,  as  Canning  was  aided,  by  the  enthusiasm  felt  by  men  of  liberal 
views  for  a  revolution  that  was  expected  to  extend  the  domain  of  lib- 
eralism; but  with  Vergennes,  as  with  Canning,  the  object  was  the  es- 
tablishing of  a  power  abroad  which  could  resist  a  dangerous  aggression 
at  home. 

When,  in  February,  1778,  France  acknowledged  the  independence 


*  See  Gerard  to  Congress,  Feb.  9,  1779;  Luzerue  to  Congress,  Jan.  28,  1780.  For 
particulars,  see  infra.,  ^  98. 

t  See  index  tables,  Spain,  A.  Lee,  Jay,  Carmicbael.  Sbelburue  Avas  willing  to  give 
up  Gibraltar,  and  was  right  in  this,  as  Gibraltar  has  never  been  of  much  use  to  Great 
Britain,  and  its  retention  has  involved  her  in  at  least  two  wars  with  Spain. 

tThat  Gouverneur  Morris  and  Jay  concurred  in  1780  in  an  unwillingness  (o  insist 
on  the  Mississippi  valley,  see  5  Balicroft's  United  States,  305. 

As  to  Spain's  conflict  as  to  western  battles  with  the  United  States,  see  Vergennes 
to  Gerard,  March  29,  1778. 

As  to  the  embarrassing  position  in  which  France  was  placed  between  her  allies,  see 
$53. 

As  to  the  controversy  with  Spain,  see  Schuyler's  American  Diplomacy,  266,  268. 

428 


CHAP,  v.]  ATTITUDE    OF    SPAIN.  [§  86. 

of  the  tJnited  States,  Vergenncs  had  good  reason  to  hold  either  that 
Britain  would  not  resent  tlie  insult  by  war,  or  that  she  would  find  that 
in  such  a  war  the  odds  were  against  her.  A  British  army  had  just  ca- 
pitulated at  Saratoga.  xVnierica,  so  it  was  reported  to  Vergennes  and 
so  he  believed,  was  unanimous  in  determining  to  defend  her  liberties  to 
the  last.  In  IlolUind  there  was  a  strong  party  which  was  expected  to 
force  the  States-General  into  a  recognition  of  their  sister  republic. 
Spain  had  already  secretly  advanced  a  million  of  francs  to  the  American 
commissioners.  From  Frederick  the  Great,  delighted  to  see  his  British 
relatives,  who  had  not  always  supported  him  in  his  troubles,  annoyed 
by  a  revolt  in  their  own  domain,  came  words  very  encouraging  to  the 
American  envoys.  Catharine  II  listened  with  apparent  satisfaction  to 
a  scheme  which  would  relieve  her  infant  shipping  from  British  oppres- 
sion. It  looked  as  if,  sliould  Britain  declare  war  against  France,  she 
would  have  against  her  the  armies  and  navies  of  all  continental  Europe, 
aided  by  the  people  of  her  American  Colonies  in  a  compact  mass. 

But  in  a  few  mouths  there  came  a  great  change.  The  British  army 
under  Howe  was  so  largely  re-enforced  as  for  the  immediate  present 
to  give  it  a  great  superiority  over  any  army  Congress  could  bring 
against  it  in  open  field.  The  loyalist  party,  it  was  claimed,  had  grown 
greatly  in  the  inaction  of  the  winter  of  1177-78;  and  certainly  some  of 
the  leaders  of  that  party  deported  themselves  with  an  audacity  in  which 
they  had  not  for  some  months  indulged.  Undoubtedly  there  were  then 
serious  defections  from  the  revolutionary  ranks.  It  was  officially  re- 
])orted  to  the  British  admiralty  that  there  were  7,000  American  seamen 
employed  in  British  privateers,  and  the  number  of  provincials  nozni- 
nally  in  the  British  armies  was  still  greater.  It  is  true  that  it  was 
afterwards  shown  that  these  statements  were  far  from  being  reliable ; 
and,  as  we  have  seen.  Sir  W.  Howe  candidly  conf<'ssed  that  the  ad- 
dress to  him  from  leading  citizens  of  Philadelphia  advising  him  to  take 
possession  of  that  city — an  address  which  was  circulated  throughout 
Europe  and  America  as  genuine — was  forged  by  himself.  It  is  true,  also, 
that  the  more  conspicuous  converts  made  from  the  repnblican  ranks  were 
either  traitors  like  Arnold,  or  time-servers  like  Galloway,  who  received 
a  large  pension  as  soon  as  his  apostacy  was  declared.  It  is  true,  also, 
that  Galloway's  estimate  in  his  testimony  in  the  House  of  Commons  that 
five  sixths  of  the  American  population  were  loyalists  was  a  very  gross 
exaggeration.  Still  it  must  be  conceded  that  in  the  winter  of  1777-'78, 
when  Howe  was  in  Philadelphia  and  Washington  at  Valley  Forge, 
there  were  many  respectable  and  influential  members  of  the  community 
who  had  acquiesced  in  the  Revolution  because  they  believed  it  would 
succeed,  but  who  were  now^  ready  to  acquiesce  in  the  restoration  of 
British  authority  becanse  they  looked  upon  such  restoration  as  likely 
to  be  permanent. 

It  is  true  that  the  news  in  April  of  the  French  treaty  revived  the 
energies  of  the  revolutionists ;  but  this  treaty  had  its  drawbacks,  as  the 

429 


§  86.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  V. 

old  dislike  of  France,  in  part  inherited  from  England,  in  part  the  prod- 
uct of  tlie  Seven-years  war,  intensified  the  yearning  for  the  mother  coun- 
try which  in  many  hearts  still  remained.  French  officers  complained 
that  on  their  first  arrival  in  New  England  they  were  received  with  sul- 
len aversion  by  the  people,  though  welcomed  by  the  revolutionary 
leaders.  The  French  army  and  navy,  for  the  first  year  in  which  they 
were  engaged  in  America,  did  no  good  to  the  American  cause;  and  so 
great  was  the  popular  irritation  at  their  inactivity,  so  strong,  it  was 
said,  continued  to  be  the  old  race  attachment  to  England,  that  intelli- 
gent French  observers  in  America  advised  Vergennes  that  he  must 
move  warily,  for  at  any  moment  America  might  make  a  separate  peace 
with  Britain  and  then  join  the  British  forces  against  France.  No  doubt 
these  reports,  so  far  as  they  pronounced  this  to  be  the  drift  of  a  large 
minority  in  Congress,  were  unfounded  in  fact.  They  were  nevertheless 
communicated  under  high  sanction  to  Vergennes,  and  produced  in  his 
mind  the  liveliest  anxiety.  He  knew  that  Britain  was  ottering  large 
inducements  to  France  to  desert  America;  what  if  America  should  suc- 
cumb to  equally  large  inducements  to  desert  France  ?  It  was  possible, 
but  it  would  be  the  ruin  of  France,  unless  she  could  obtain  powerful 
European  allies. 

But  what  allies  could  she  obtain?  English  influence  had  for  a  time 
regained  its  ascendency  in  Holland.  Prussia  and  Russia,  having  tasted 
the  delights  of  neutral  commerce,  let  it  be  plainly  understood  that  they 
would  not  abandon  a  neutrality  so  profitable  for  the  risks  of  belligerency. 
And  Spain  had  taken  alarm  and  was  backing  out  not  merely  from  the 
family  compact,  but  from  her  recent  promise  to  aid  the  insurgents. 
Aiding  the  insurgents,  her  minister  declared,  would  be  cutting  her 
own  throat,  and  no  aid  to  the  insurgents  should  be  given  except  on  a 
very  heavy  equivalent. 

If  France  was  to  meet  the  shock  of  the  British  navy  alone  she  might 
be  swept  from  the  seas,  and,  aside  from  this  danger,  her  finances  were 
in  such  a  ruinous  condition  that  her  bankruptcy  was  imminent.  One  of 
two  courses  must  be  adopted,  not  only  to  save  France  but  to  save  the 
independence  of  the  United  States  and  the  consequent  equipoise  of 
power  for  which  France  has  gone  to  war.  There  must  be  either  a  gen- 
eral peace,  which  would  include  the  independence  of  the  United  States, 
or  there  must  be  war,  with  Spain  joining  the  allies. 

But  in  treating  for  a  general  peace,  to  which  the  United  States  were 
to  be  recognized  as  a  sovereign  party,  it  was  important  that  the  terms 
should  be  adjusted  in  such  a  way  as  to  save  as  far  as  possible  the  pride 
of  Great  Britain,  so  as  not,  by  either  a  too  haughty  tone  or  too  exorbi- 
tant territorial  pretensions,  to  unite  the  British  people  in  a  continuance 
of  a  war,  of  which,  as  it  then  stood,  they  were  tired.  Spain,  having 
offered  to  become  the  mediator,  was  the  party  whose  duty  it  particularly 
was,  as  we  will  see,  to  present  the  [)retensions  of  the  United  States  in 
such  a  shape  as  to  make  their  accex^tance  by  Britain  probable ;  but 
430 


CHAP,  v.]  ATTITUDE    OF    SPAIN.  [§  86. 

to  France,  in  her  condition  of  exhaustion  and  alarm,  such  a  moder- 
ate presentation  was  of  greater  importance  than  it  was  to  Spain.  If 
France  coukl  help  it,  peace,  by  which  the  United  States  would  be  rec- 
ognized as  independent,  was  not  to  be  prevented  by  the  assertion  of 
territorial  claims  by  the  United  States  to  wliich  Britain  could  not  at  that 
period  be  exi)ected  to  yield.  On  tlie  other  hand,  if  war  was  to  continue, 
Spain  must  be  brought  into  it  as  an  ally.  It  was  in  this  condition  of 
affairs  that  the  position  of  Spain  in  1778-'79  became  of  commanding 
importance.  She  offered  herself  as  mediator  between  the  allies  and 
their  common  enemy,  and  through  her  the  terms  of  pacification  were 
discussed.  In  the  negotiations,  protracted  and  on  both  sides  largely 
insincere,  between  Spain  and  Britain  rolative  to  the  proposed  pacifica- 
tion, the  winter  of  1778-'79  was  consumed.  During  this  period  Britain 
was  strengthening  herself  for  the  conflict  which  she  saw  was  approach- 
ing between  her  navy  and  the  combined  Bourbon  fleets,  while  Spain 
was  losing  what  turned  out  to  be  her  supreme  opportunity  of  striking, 
in  common  with  France,  with  decisive  effect  at  a  foe  with  whom  she 
knew  that  war  wjis  sooner  or  later  inevitable. 

The  correspondence  at  this  critical  era  between  Vergennes  and 
Montmoriu,  French  minister  at  Madrid,  on  the  one  side,  and  Gerard, 
French  minister  at  Philadelphia,  on  the  other,  deserv^es  careful  study, 
as  showing  the  then  attitude  of  France  to  Spain  and  the  United  States. 

To  Montmorin  on  July  24,  1778,  Vergennes,  after  declaring  that 
'^  the  English  are  the  aggressors,  the  Catholic  king  and  his  minister 
admit  it,"  proceeded  to  say  that  ^-it  is  with  a  deep  feeling  of  silent 
grief  that  the  king's  government  sees  the  Spanish  ministry  persist  in 
silence  and  apparent  indifference,  for  it  will  not  be  long  before  the  con- 
sequences, which  appear  now  to  threaten  us  alone,  will  affect  Spain." 
He  then  argued  that  this  result  was  iuevitable;  and  he  dilated  on  the 
security  which  Spain  would  have  gained  with  regard  to  Gibraltar  if 
the  junction  of  her  ships  with  the  French  at  the  mouth  of  the  English 
Channel  had  enabled  France  to  shut  up  KeppePs  fleet  within  the 
straits.  He  insisted  on  the  weakening  effect  which  this  juncture 
would  have  upon  England,  by  pt-e venting  the  return  of  her  merchant 
seamen.  "  We  would,"  he  said,  "  be  masters  of  the  ocean  during  the 
whole  campaign  ;  the  English  commerce  would  fall  a  prey  to  the  priva- 
teers, and  her  sailors  would  be  i^revented  from  returning  home."  Pie 
expatiated  on  the  injury  done  to  France  by  the  dilatory  counsels  and 
undecided  neutrality  of  Spain.  "At  the  time  when  Byron  and  Keppel 
were  separated  our  hands  were  tied  by  her  advice  not  to  be  the  first  to 
begin  hostilities  and  by  our  acceptance  of  the  mediation.  When  we 
attained  a  greater  degree  of  liberty  through  her  quasi  invitation  to  take 
advantage  of  the  opportunity,  if  it  i^resented  itself,  the  winds  which 
detained  our  fleet  at  Brest  supplied  England  with  sailors  and  wealth. 
We  then  had  the  superiority  over  Keppel.  To-day  he  is  as  strong  as  we 
are,  to-morrow  he  will  be  stronger,  and  we  shall  be  obliged  to  return  to 

431 


§  86.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAR  V. 

the  harbor  of  Brest  to  avoid  a  disastrous  defeat.  We  would  uot  be  re- 
duced to  these  sad  straits  if  Spain,  111  view  of  the  immeuse  ad\^autages 
offered,  had  decided  to  send  us  the  prelimiuary  aid  iu  ships  stipulated 
by  the  family  compact." 

The  semi-victory,  as  it  Avas  called,  achieved  iu  the  channel  by  the 
French  fleet  under  Orvilliers  over  the  British  fleet  under  Keppel  en- 
abled the  French  ministry  to  take  a  more  decided  tone;  and  Montmorin 
reported  that  tliere  were  indications  that  Spain  was  plucking  up  cour- 
age to  come  to  the  aid  of  France  On  August  22,  1778,  Gerard  writes 
from  Philadelphia  to  Yergeunes  tbat — 

"The  Marylaud  and  Pennsylvania  delegates  told  me  that  a  large  number  of  citizens 
who  had  hitherto  refused  to  take  the  oath  to  the  States  were  preseuting  themselves 
one  after  another  to  be  admitted  to  it  since  I  had  avowed  my  character.  The  En- 
glish had  persuaded  their  jiartisans  that  the  king's  fleet  had  no  other  object  than  that 
of  protecting  some  commercial  operations  which  were  intended  to  reimburse  the  king 
for  the  sums  which  his  majesty  had  advanced  to  the  Americans. 

"I  neglect  nothing,  monseigneur,  to  strengthen  the  impression  produced  by  the  in- 
estimable advantages  secured  to  America  by  the  declaration  and  the  open  assistance 
of  France,  and  every  day  couiirms  me  more  in  the  conviction  that  his  majesty's  wis- 
dom has  chosen  the  most  favorable,  and  perhaps  the  only,  moment  to  prevent  the  coa- 
lition of  England  and  America.  Several  members  of  Congress  admitted  to  me  that 
the  proclamation  of  April  26,  by  which  it  rejected  in  advance  the  coucilatory  bills, 
had  been  a  desperate  stroke  on  its  part  to  prevent  the  ruinous  results  which  it 
dreaded  from  the  future  iind  from  the  intrigues  of  the  commissioners.  At  the  time 
of  their  arrival  everyone  was  aware  of  the  steps  which  were  being  taken  for  the 
evacuation  of  Philadelphia,  which  was  resolved  upon  iu  consequence  of  the  necessity 
under  which  the  British  were  laboring  of  concentrating  their  forces  to  oppose  the 
king's  fleet.  The  commissioners  postponed  the  evacuation  in  order  to  avoid  the  bad 
effect  which  it  would  have  had  upon  the  opening  of  their  negotiations  ;  but  by  that 
time  the  king's  measures  and  his  alliance  had  reassured  and  united  the  minds  of  the 
public."     (3Doniol,  298.) 

Doniol,  after  giving  this  dispatch,  proceeds  to  say  that— 

''After  this  date  circumstances  had  neutralized  the  effect  of  the  opera  lions  under- 
taken b}^  the  fleet  in  aid  of  the  United  States,  and  for  a  long  time  it  was  impossible 
to  resume  them.  This,"  he  continues,  "  had  caused  much  irritation  of  feeling.  Ge- 
rard employed  his  influence  over  Congress  in  sheltering  us  from  this  feeling  and  in 
protecting  that  body  from  the  intrigues  of  the  English  commissioners,  which  had  been 
rendered  so  much  more  dangerous  by  it.  The  arrival  of  our  ships  in  America  a  fort- 
night sooner  would  have  been  a  disaster  to  Howe;  he  would  never  have  gotten  out 
of  the  Delaware.  Perhaps  the  English  army  itself  would  liave  suffered  a  check;  for 
in  all  probability  Lee's  defection  would  not  have  occurred  to  paralyze  Washington's 
efforts,  and,  hard  pressed  by  the  American  troops  and  cut  off  from  the  sea  by  Count 
d'Estaing,  Clinton  would  no  doubt  have  been  overwhelmed  by  the  same  fate  as  Bur- 
goyne  at  Saratoga.  But  the  hope  of  these  results  had  vanished.  A  month  was  suf- 
ficient to  exhibit  the  great  services  which  our  intervention  ought  to  have  rendered^ 
and  which  were  really  expected  from  it,  annihilated  by  the  course  of  events.  With 
the  exception  of  having  displayed  the  ardor  and  valor  which  animated  our  re-created 
navy,  and  the  energy  and  courage  which  the  vice-admiral  of  the  seas  of  Asia  an-l 
America  was  prepared  to  lavish  in  the  cause  of  our  allies,  our  efforts  had  resulted  in 
little  or  nothing.  After  communicating  to  Versailles  early  in  November  this  opening 
of  his  campaign,  the  officer  who  had  undergone  all  its  vicissitudes  summed  them  up 
in  the  following  brief  preface  to  his  report,  a  document  of  no  less  iixtereat  thau  his 
432 


CHAP,  v.]  ATTITUDE    OF    SPAIN.  [§  86. 

replies  to  Gerard's  questions  in  enabling  us  to  form  an  opinion  of  the  niau  and  to 
verify  the  truth  of  history  : 

'''The  slowness  of  our  sailing,  which  robbed  us  of  certain  success;  the  want  of 
anchorage,  which  proved  to  be  an  insuperable  obstacle  ;  a  scpiall,  which  enabled  an 
English  squadron,  at  lirst  intending  to  attack  us,  to  escape  after  we  had  chased  it 
thirty-six  hours;  the  dismasting  of  two  of  our  largest  ships,  and  the  enormous  supe- 
riority which  the  junction  of  his  two  fleets  gives  the  enemy,  have  only  allowed  us  to 
make  repeated  attempts,  doing  liitle  harm  to  the  English  ;  and,  lastly,  to  adopt  de- 
fensive measures,  and  to  get  under  way  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  tiiat  part  of 
my  instructions  which  the  season  renders  necessary.'  "  * 

The  position  of  Americjin  afikirs  in  the  first  days  of  September,  1778, 
as  they  appeared  to  Gerard  at  that  period,  is  thus  summed  up : 

"Lord  Carlisle  and  his  colleagues  employed  all  their  English  tenacity  to  make  the 
most  of  the  moral  etfect  produced  by  these  acts  of  folly  (the  movements  against 
Washington  by  the  friends  of  Gates,  Conway,  and  Lee).  A  great  experience  in  polit- 
ical expedients  and  thorough  uuscrupulousness  aidcnl  them  in  this  task,  and  their 
efitorts  found  but  too  numy  accomplices  in  the  heart  of  a  country  one  half  of  which, 
and  that  the  most  important,  was  opposed  to  the  struggle  maintained  in  its  behalf, 
and  could  not  only  show  its  disapproval,  but  could  act  in  accordance  with  it  by  fur- 
nishing scouts,  purveyors,  and  guides  to  the  enemy. 

"  These  commissioners  had  been  sent  very  opportunely,  as  a  large  number  of  Amer- 
icans who  had  at  first  joined  in  the  resistance  were  now  rather  devising  means  of 
putting  an  end  to  it  than  of  securing  a  successful  result.  In  the  midst  of  the  War  of 
Independence  they  were  now  aggravating  the  horrors  of  civil  war,  which  already 
existed  in  social  relations.  The^^  aroused  and  excited  those  'hot-heads'  of  whom 
Gerard  spoke,  and  the  civil  war  spread  more  and  more.  The  armed  tories  raised  the 
savage  tribes  and  kept  the  field  with  them,  and  measures  were  taken  by  Congress, 
as  well  as  by  several  States,  to  compel  them  to  submit  or  to  pursue  them  in  their 
persons  and  property.  At  this  distance  of  time  the  London  commissioners,  supported 
by  the  English  forces,  rather  resemble  a  legal  authority  defending  itself  against  a 
powerful  opposition  than  agents  sent  out  on  a  difficult  mission.  By  exciting  discon- 
tent and  fostering  feelings  of  weariness  they  endeavored  to  force  Congress  to  votes 
of  dissatisfaction  or  to  equivocal  acts  which  might  present  a  basis  of  reconciliation 
and  furnish  the  premises  of  an  agreement.  The  want  of  experience  of  that  body,  the 
fickleness  caused  by  the  frequent  changes  of  its  members,  its  lack  of  leadership,  and 
its  want  of  all  power  to  carry  out  general  measures  gave  them  the  strongest  support. 
It  had  at  first  repelled  their  overtures  with  contempt ;  had  afterwards  made  them 
ashamed  of  their  methods  of  corruption,  and  after  that  declared  to  them  that  it  would 
no  longer  hear  their  communications  if  they  were  signed  by  Johnstone,  on  account 
of  the  dishonorable  proposals  attributed  to  the  latter.  It  did  not  see  the  inconsist- 
ency into  which  it  was  falling  by  recognizing  these  delegates  as  genuine  plenipoten- 
tiaries and  by  opening  its  doors  to  them.  Hence,  at  the  very  moment  when  the 
attack  on  Newport  was  to  take  place,  they  took,  as  a  pretext  to  reappear  before  Con- 
gress, a  subject  which  was  already  old,  the  execution  of  the  convention  of  Saratoga, 
which  had  been  suspended  for  ten  months,  because  both  sides  declared  that  that  con- 
vention had  been  violated."  (3  Doniol,  396,  397,  citing  Gerard's  dispatch,  July  16, 
1778.) 

By  the  same  high  authority  tlie  position  of  Spain  in  the  summer  of 
1778  is  thus  described  : 

"Spain  did  not  long  leave  the  government  of  the  king  in  the  enjoyment  of  the 
hopes  which  had  been  raised  by  the  reports  sent  by  our  ambassador  on  the  8th  June. 
They  had  almost  entirely  vanished  at  the  beginning  of  July,  and  the  communications 


*  Id.,  298-299. 
28  WH  433 


§86  ]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  V. 

■whicli  then  succeeded  each  other  soon  dissipated  the  little  that  remained.  On  the 
20th  June  Montmorin,  who  had  been  greatly  encouraged  by  his  recent  interviews, 
was  met,  to  his  astonishment,  by  a  fresh  coolness  on  the  part  of  Florida-Blanca  to- 
wards the  ambitious  views  justly  attributed  to  his  sovereign.  Endeavoring,  as  it 
appeared,  to  retract  his  previous  remarks,  the  prime  minister  again  seemed  to  be  but 
little  interested  in  the  project  of  acquiring  possession  of  Jamaica.  He  regarded  the 
recapture  of  Gibraltar  as  a  chimera;  and  what  is  more,  the  proposition  made  by 
France  to  retake  it  apjieared  to  him  a  piece  of  statecraft  suggested  by  the  desire  to 
divide  the  English  forces,  to  defeat  them  more  easily,  and  afterwards  to  conclude  a 
peace  without  any  regard  to  the  interests  of  Spain,  'for  whom  France  cared  little, 
although  she  was  grieved  to  see  Gibraltar  in  the  hands  of  England.'  As  to  Florida, 
with  the  exception  of  the  single  points  of  Pensacola  and  Mobile,  he  said  that  its  pos- 
session was  useless  from  the  moment  that  England  had  obtained  a  formal  cession  of 
it.  In  short,  in  his  opinion,  they  had  been  wrong  in  not  adhering  to  the  proposition 
of  mediation,  for  they  could  have  gained  from  it  those  advantages  which  they  were 
now  striving  Tor.  Accordingly,  M.  de  Florida-Blanca  enjoined  it  upon  our  represent- 
ative to  urge  us,  on  behalf  of  the  king,  to  avoid  a  naval  conflict,  the  unsuccessful 
result  of  which  might  perhaps  decide  the  whole  future,  not  to  go  out  of  Brest,  and  to 
allow  the  English  forces  to  consume  away  in  idleness.  The  king,  in  a  conversation 
with  Montmorin,  partially  indorsed  this  language  by  these  words :  '  It  is  a  great  pity 
that  you  did  not  have  a  little  more  patience  ;  we  could  have  attacked  them  with  more 
vigor. '  "     (3  Doniol,  472, 473.) 

On  October  9,  wben  Spain  was  still  keeping  open  her  mediatory  ne- 
gotiations with  Britain,  Vergennes,  when  asked  whether  the  American 
commissioners  wonld  assent  to  negotiations  for  peace  nnder  Spanish 
mediation,  answered,  according  to  DonioPs  summary,  that — 

"He  would  undertake  that  responsibility  in  the  name  of  Congress,  as  he  was  con- 
vinced that  by  this  means  he  would  secure  to  that  body  the  ends  which  it  had  in 
view,  and  as  he  was  too  certain  of  the  views  of  the  King  of  Spain  to  fear  that  that 
monarch  would  wish  him  to  perjure  himself  in  this  matter.  '  I  propose,'  wrote  Ver- 
gennes,  *to  make  two  draughts,  one  of  which  will  contain  the  modifications  to  which 
we  may  consent,  if  the  reconciliation  only  depends  on  a  few  modifications  or  a  little 
compliance.  The  only  point  on  which  his  majesty  can  not  yield  is  that  of  the  entire 
and  perfect  independence  of  the  thirteen  United  States  of  North  America,  and,  con- 
sequeutly,  of  the  full  restitution  of  all  that  may  belong  to  them  as  such,  especially 
New  York,  Long  Island,  Rhode  Island,'  etc. 

"  *If  the  negotiations,'  he  added,  '  should  be  held  at  Madrid,  I  agree  with  you  that 
one  of  the  American  cotumissioners  should  go  there  to  watch  over  the  interests  of 
his  constituents.  I  can  not  tell  jou  whether  these  commissioners  have  power  to  treat 
of  peace  with  England.  The  fear  of  betraying  the  secret  of  the  acts  and  offices  of 
Spain  has  rendered  me  very  reserved  in  asking  them  any  questions  which  might  put 
them  in  the  way  of  suspecting  that  there  is  any  negotiation  on  foot;  but  granting 
that  they  have  no  powers,  I  do  not  think  that  the  peace  proceedings  would  be  delayed 
by  it.  Congress  having  declared  to  the  English  commissioners  that  it  would  be  always 
ready  to  listen  to  proposals  of  peace  as  soon  as  England  should  recognize  their  inde- 
pendence or  should  withdraw  its  land  and  naval  forces  from  America.  We  shall  thus 
fulfill  its  wishes  and  our  duty  if  we  secure  to  it  these  two  indispensable  conditions, 
without  which  the  re-establishment  of  peace  would  be  impracticable,  unless  we  were 
willing  to  sacrifice  our  honor.  We  no  not  fear  that  the  King  of  Spain,  who  has  such 
a  regard  for  our  honor  and  who  possesses  such  elevation  and  nobility  of  mind,  will 
ever  propose  to  us  a  sacrifice  of  such  importance.* 

*  3  Doniol,  521,  522. 

434 


CHAP,  v.]  ATTITUDE    OF    SPAIN.  [§  86. 

**0u  the  17th  of  October,"  continues  Doniol,  <'  tlio  drannjlit  of  the  terms  on  which 
France  would  consent  to  peace  wore  forwarded  to  Moutuu)riM,  French  minister  at 
Madrid,  Vergennes  had  outlined  these  terms  immediately  in  a  note  in  his  own  hand- 
writin-;,  intended  doubtless  for  the  kin<;  in  the  first  place,  and  afterwards  altered  to 
the  form  of  articles  by  his  own  hand,  lie  had  hims<df  revised  this  secoud  minute, 
and  added  notes  specifying  the  modifications  which  might  be  allowed  ;  and  he  wrote 
to  Montmorin  that  the  king  might  see  fit  to  specify  others  at  a  later  period.  The 
complete  political  and  territorial  independence  of  the  United  States  formed  the  first 
article.  This  condition  being  settled,  the  others  were  as  moderate  as  those  announced 
at  the  time  of  the  mediation  supposed  to  have  been  asked  for  l)y  Lord  Weymouth  six 
months  before.  To  prove  that  they  retained  the  same  character,  M.  de  Vergennes 
added  a  copy  of  the  latter  to  his  dispatch.  These  conditions  extended  only  to  the 
withdrawal  of  the  English  commissioner  at  Dunkirk  and  to  a  fair  division  of  the 
Newfoundland  fisheries,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht. 
There  were  some  new  articles,  it  is  true,  such  as  the  revival  of  the  navigation  laws 
established  by  that  treaty,  or  their  mutual  abrogation  with  a  view  to  the  establish- 
ment of  a  new  set  of  regulations.  The  minister,  to  use  his  own  w^ords,  'took  ad- 
vantage of  the  opportunity'  to  introduce  this  clause;  he  had,  however,  little  hope  of 
its  being  granted.  In  the  notes  in  his  own  handwriting  he  hinted  that  the  king 
might  yield  more  than  one  point,  and  wo  have  just  stated  that  he  gave  assurances  of 
it  in  his  instructions.  *  Conditions  in  every  respect  of  a  nature  to  be  granted,'  said 
he,  and  he  had  a  right  to  think  so;  still,  he  did  not  venture  to  believe  that  they 
would  be,  on  account  of  the  self-conceit  of  England. 

"As  the  reply,"  continues  Doniol,  ''of  the  cabinet  of  George  III  did  not  reach 
Madrid  until  the  middle  of  November,  the  correspondence  of  Vergennes  with  Mont- 
morin had  turned  upon  these  subjects  repeatedly.  The  minister  urged  the  latter 
again  and  again  to  hasten  the  decision,  warning  him  that  England,  far  from  taking 
any  steps  in  the  direction  of  j)cace,  was  raising  fresh  forces  with  'astonishing  energy.' 
On  the  other  hand,  a  series  of  dispatches  from  Monlniorin  showed  that  the  King  of 
Spain  persisted  in  his  hopes  of  success  in  spite  of  the  continued  silence  of  the  British 
ministry.  They  prove,  at  the  same  time,  the  gradualdevelopmentof  the  conviction 
on  the  part  of  Florida'-Blanca  that  war  was  inevitable,  and  that  Spain  would  be  in- 
volved in  it  in  the  spring.  George  Ill's  cabinet,  on  their  side,  did  not  yield  a  hair's 
breadth  of  their  first  demands.  They  accepted  the  intervention  of  Spain,  but  in- 
sist* d  that  France  must  first  recall  her  fleet  from  America  and  cease  to  give  any  aid 
to  the  United  States.  Montmorin  announced  on  the  16th  November  that  they  were 
ahout  to  act  on  these  absurd  demands,  and  simply  forward  the  French  propositions 
to  London  as  soon  as  he  had  made  it  well  nnderstoc;d  that  France  must  first  meet 
preliminary  terms  of  this  nature  with  proper  equivalents,  and  consequently  demand, 
first  of  all,  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  and  the  with- 
drawal of  the  English  forces.  This  had  led  to  an  interchange  of  communications. 
Florida-Blanca  announced  the  measures  which  he  intended  to  make  trial  of,  and  these 
later  interviews  resulted  in  Montmorin  writing  to  Vergennes  that  indecision  had 
again  taken  possession  of  the  mind  of  the  court  of  Madrid,  and  if  the  condition  rela- 
tive to  the  independence  of  the  Colonies,  formally  laid  down  by  France  as  it  was,  did 
not  cause  this  change,  though  all  the  preceding  negotiations  ought  to  have  made  it 
easy  for  Spain  to  foresee  it,  it  certainly  had  something  to  do  with  it."  * 

Montmorin  wrote  on  October  15,  1778,  to  Vergennes  that  Florida- 
Blanca  proposed  to  the  English  minister  (Grantham)  the  following  set- 
tlement : 

(1)  Absolute  independence  of  the  Colonies. 

(2)  Preservation  of  Canada  and  Acadia  by  England. 


3  Doniol,  523-525,  from  which  the  above  is  in  part  translated. 

435 


§  86.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  V. 

(3)  Cessiou  of  all  Florida  to  the  Colonies  except  what  is  necessary  for  the  protec- 
tion of  Spanish  commerce  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  According  to  Montmorin,  Gran- 
tham received  these  terms  without  surprise  and  appeared  to  be  convinced  that  Parlia- 
ment would  yield  the  independence  of  the  Colonies.* 

Ou  October  30,  1778,  Vergeiiiies  replied  that  what  Frauce  insisted 
on  was  the  iudepeudence  of  the  Uuited  States  as  they  were,  which  did 
not  involve  the  independence  of  such  other  parts  of  the  English  posses- 
sions in  America  as  did  not  i)articipate  in  the  Rev^olutiou. 

*'  France,"  he  said,  **  did  not  desire  to  sec  the  new  republic  mistress  of  the  entire 
continent.  It  would  be  better  that  the  English  should  retain  Canada,  both  to  pre- 
vent too  great  aggregation  of  j)oweraud  to  subserve  the  alliance  of  the  new  republic 
with  France." 

The  question  of  the  division  of  Florida  was  reserved.  "  The  people 
of  the  United  States,"  he  added,  ^'  were  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  race  of 
conquerors.  In  their  determination  to  insist  on  independence  he  had 
learned,"  he  said,  "  to  put  entire  confidence." 

Doniol,  as  showing  how  anxious  the  American  leaders  were  for  Span- 
ish aid,  quotes  a  letter  from  Washington  of  October  4,  1778,t  in  which 
he  expresses  his  fears  that  in  the  struggle  between  the  French  and  the 
British  navies  the  French  would  be  overmatched  in  strength,  and  then 
says  that  if  Spain  would  consent  to  join  France  ^'  my  doubts  would  all 
subside."  This  condition  of  affairs  explains  the  concessions  Congress 
was  then  ready  to  make  to  Spain. 

On  October  26,  1778,  Vergennes  instructed  Gerard  that  the  king 
would  not  under  any  circumstances  separate  his  cause  from  that  of 
America,  but  would  treat  the  American  cause  as  if  it  were  his  own. 
But  it  is  important,  he  urged,  in  order  to  obtaiu  Spanish  aid  as  well  as 
not  to  unite  England  in  a  continuance  of  the  war,  to  avoid  presenting 
exorbitant  claims.  The  points  of  difference,  he  holds,  will  be  as  to 
Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  the  Floridas,  and  the  Newfoundland  fisheries. 
"  We  have  always  thought  and  still  think,"  he  says,  ''  that  it  would  be 
expedient  to  leave  Canada  and  even  Nova  Scotia  in  English  hands,  and 
if  an  acquisition  for  the  United  States  is  sought  in  this  part  of  America 
they  should  have  Nova  Scotia.  If  Florida  should  be  conquered  by  the 
United  States  it  would  be  desirable  to  cede  Pensacola  and  its  vicinage 
to  Spain."  The  control  of  the  Newfoundland  fisheries  he  thinks  Brit- 
ain could  not  reasonably  be  expected  to  surrender.  He  would  advise 
that  the  ultimatum  of  Congress  should  be  the  surrender  of  Canada  to 
Britain,  the  United  States  retaining  Nova  Scotia,  renunciation  of  the 
Newfoundland  fisheries,  and  the  surrender  to  Spain  of  such  Florida  ports 
as  she  should  require.  As  to  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  Ver- 
gennes, in  this  paper,  maintains  that  there  ^vill  be  no  difficulty,  and  that 
he  would  be  astonished  if  Spain  made  any  opposition  to  it. 

Towards  the  close  of  October  Florida-Blanca  was  evidently  coming 
to  the  conclusion  that  Spain  must  enter  into  the  war.     Still,  however. 


*  3  Doniol,  556.  t  See  supra,  $  53. 

436 


CHAP,  v.]  ATTITUDE    OF    SPAIN.  [§  86. 

as  Moiitinoriu  wrote  to  Vergeunes  on  November  13,  there  reiuaiaed  in 
Spain  the  dread  of  territorial  encroachment  by  the  u  nited  States  ;  and 
aside  from  this  the  habit  of  procrastination  was  so  powerful  as  to  make 
prompt  action  almost  impossible,  no  matter  how  great  were  the  stakes. 
''  Have  patience,"  so  Florida-Blanca  is  reported,  on  November  16,  by 
Moutmorin,  as  saying,  "  and  you  will  find  all  will  come  out  right."  In 
the  mean  time  aid  from  Spain  became,  in  Vergennes'  mind,  an  imperi- 
ous necessity  if  the  United  States  were  to  be  preserved  from  subjuga- 
tion and  the  French  navy  to  be  saved.  He  scolfed  at  the  idea  that  the 
United  States  would  be  a  more  dangerous  neighbor  to  Spain  than 
would  England.  If  the  United  States  should  submit  to  England,  what 
check  would  there  be  on  English  aggrandizement?  Charles  III,  still 
hesitating  and  desirous  of  saving  both  his  prestige  and  that  of  England, 
suggested  in  the  last  week  of  December  a  compromise  in  the  shape  of 
a  truce  between  England  and  the  United  States,  under  which  truce,  to 
be  renewed  from  time  to  time,  they  would  gradually  acquire  their  inde- 
pendence under  the  auspices  of  the  French  and  Spanish  crowns. 

On  December  5,  1778,  Vergennes  addressed  a  very  important  letter 
to  the  king,  saying  France  could  only  at  great  disadvantage  wage  alone 
a  nav^al  war  against  England,  and  that  while  the  pretensions  of  Spain 
are  "  gigantesque,"  to  controvert  them  at  that  time  would  interfere 
with  the  prompt  settlement  of  a  common  plan  of  operations.  Louis 
XVI  united  with  his  minister  in  pressing  these  views  on  the  Spanish 
court,  but  still  ''  I'irreductible  inertiede  PEspagne"*  continued  to  pre- 
vail. Both  in  the  Channel  and  in  the  American  waters  the  French  navy 
was  paralyzed,  and  it  became  necessary  for  Vergennes,  if  he  would  save 
French  maritime  interests,  to  make  some  concession  to  the  "  exigencies" 
of  Spain.  On  December  24  a  courier  was  dispatched  to  Madrid  giving 
the  final  reply  of  the  French  Government  to  the  x^roposals  of  Spain. 
This  reply  was  in  three  distinct  dispatches:  The  first  discussed  the  truce 
proposition;  the  second,  that  of  the  plan  of  joint  operations;  the  third, 
that  of  the  advantages  to  be  secured  by  the  war.  In  these  papers  the 
sacred  inviolability  of  France's  engagements  to  the  United  States  was 
made  the  essential  condition  of  the  alliance.  "  La  consideration  [)rimor- 
diale  et  souveraine  de  nos  engagements  avec  les  I5tats-Unis,  la  conditio 
sine  qua  non,  Fobligation  sacree  oii  nous  etions  de  leur  garautir  I'inde- 
pendance,  et  de  ne  point  accepter  de  traite  que  n'en  contint  la  stipulation 
expresse  comme  ils  6taient  astreints,  eux,  a  n'en  point  conclure  sans  nous 
avec  FAngleterre."  t  But  while  such  was  the  case,  the  independence  of 
the  United  States  might  be  acknowledged  and  secured  as  effectually  by 
along  truce  between  the  belliaerents,  which  would  give  theUnited  States 
a  sovereignty  which  would  continue  undiminished  when  the  truce 
closed.  Of  this  opinion  he  advised  Franklin,  withholding  it  from  Lee 
and  Adams,  to  whom  it  did  not  seem  prudent  to  impart  it  in  its  then 

*  3  Doniol,590.  1^,59:5. 

437 


§86.] 


INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  V. 


inchoate  state.     But  to  such  a  truce  the  recoynitiou  by  Great  Britaiu 
of  Americau  iudependeuce  was  au  essential  prerequisite. 

As  to  the  prospects  of  such  a  truce  beiug  accepted  Vorgeuues  si)eaks 
as  follows ; 

"  The  Americans  have  a  quasL-possessiou  of  sovereignty,  and  it  is  of  great  importance 
to  them  to  secure  it  under  no  matter  what  form.  France  has  no  other  end  in  view  with 
regard  to  America  than  this,  and  it  ought  to  be  a  matter  of  iuditference  to  her  in  what 
way  it  is  attained.  The  ouly  thing  to  which  she  attaches  importance  is,  that  the 
United  States  do  not  isolate  themselves,  and  conclude  a  peace  with  England  with- 
out France  making  peace  witli  England  at  the  same  time. 

"  From  these  data  it  appears  : 

"First.  Thafc  France  may,  without  auy  incouveuience,  consent  to  the  Americans 
treating  directly  and  alone  with  England,  under  the  express  condition,  however, 
that  the  treaty  with  the  king  shall  keep  pace  with  their  own,  and  that  either  treaty 
shall  he  null  and  void  until  the  other  is  concluded. 

*' Secondly.  That  in  default  of  a  definitive  treaty,  Congress  may  content  itself  with 
a  long  truce,  leaving  France  at  liberty  to  make  a  definitive  peace. 

*'  This  latter  expedient,  at  the  same  time  tliat  it  would  be  the  most  acceptable  to 
England,  and  consequently  the  one  best  adapted  to  promote  a  peace,  would  appear 
to  secure  equally  well  the  double  object  of  the  Americans,  namely,  repose  and  free- 
dom. The  example  of  Holland  is  the  best  argument  that  could  be  adduced  to  con- 
vince them  of  it. 

"The  two  treaties  may  be  negotiated  under  the  mediation  of  the  Catholic  king,  and 
this  is  even  desirable,  because  the  intervention  of  that  prince  would  serve  to  prevent 
the  deceptions  which  England  might  attempt  to  practice  on  the  king  or  the 
Americans. 

"  Still,  in  order  to  give  the  Americans  all  the  security  which  they  can  reasonably  de- 
sire, it  will  be  proper  to  stipulate — 

''  First.  That  England  shall  treat  with  them  as  with  an  independent  nation. 

"  Secondly.  That  she  shall  withdraw  her  laud  and  naval  forces  from  all  parts  of  the 
Americau  continent  comprised  in  the  Confederation. 

"  Thirdly.  That  the  truce  shall  be  guaranted  by  France  and  Spain,  or  at  least  by 
France,  if  Spain  refuses. 

'*  On  the  making  of  this  truce,  which  shall  be  for  twenty,  thirty,  forty,  or  fifty  years, 
France  shall  offer  the  United  States  a  new  treaty,  confirming  that  of  February  6, 
1778,  and  Spain  ma^^  be  admitted  to  it.  The  immediate  object  of  this  new  treaty  will 
be  to  protect  America  against  the  attempts  which  the  court  of  London  might,  con- 
trary to  all  probability,  make  against  her  freedom  after  the  expiration  of  the 
truce. 

"The  United  States,  thus  freed  from  a  war  which  is  oppressing  them,  will  have  lei- 
sure for  consolidating  their  government,  regulating  their  domestic  affairs,  establish- 
ing their  finances  on  a  firm  basis,  increasing  tlieir  commerce,  and  forming  with  the 
various  European  powers  political  or  commercial  alliances  which  will  be  an  addi- 
tional protection  to  their  independence."     (3  Doniol,  602,  603.) 

On  December  25,  1778,  Vergennes  addressed  to  Gerard  instructions 
as  to  the  then  pending  negotiations  witli  Spain.  Gerard  was  informed 
that  it  had  been  suggested  that,  in  view  of  the  repugnance  of  Great 
Britain  to  a  treaty  of  peace  incorporating  acknowledgment  of  independ- 
ence, it  was  proposed  that  this  acknowledgment  be  incorporated  in  a 
long  truce,  such  as  Spain  made  with  HolUind  in  1609;  that  he  (Ver- 
gennes)  had  made  this  suggestion  to  Franklin  (whom  alone  in  the  le- 
gation be  consulted),  and  that  Franklin  answered  that  independence 
438 


CHAP,  v.]  ATTITUDE    OF    SPAIN.  [§  86. 

was  the  one  great  and  necessary  object  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
the  mode  of  its  acknowledgment  was  of  little  im[)ortance,  if  it  and  the 
evacuation  were  entire  and  irrevocable  ;  that  to  the  United  States 
their  intimate  and  constant  union  with  France  was  peculiarly  deai-; 
and  that  ou  these  terms  of  absolute  inde[)endence  he  thought  the 
United  States  might  accept  a  truce  for  a  long  term  of  years.  Gerard 
is  then  instructed  to  recommend  to  Congress  the  giving  Franklin  powers 
to  negotiate  peace,  which  he  did  not  then  possess  ;  but  he  is  advised 
to  introduce  the  topic  of  truce  cautiously,  and  to  state  that  a  truce 
would  only  be  tolerated  on  two  conditions :  First,  that  Great  Britain 
treat  with  the  United  States  as  with  a  free  nation.  Second,  that  she 
evacuate  all  parts  of  the  continent  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States.  Such  a  truce,  Gerard  is  instructed  to  sa3^,  would  in  no  sense 
impair  the  guarantees  of  the  French  and  American  treaties  of  alliance 
and  commerce  made  on  the  prior  February. 

Of  Gerard's  communications  to  Congress,  in  pursuance  of  these  in- 
structions, we  have  no  report,  nor  could  we  expect  to  find  such  a  report, 
as  most  of  his  communcations  to  Congress  w^ere  oral,  and  the  sessions 
of  Congress  were  secret.  Ou  February  9,  1779,  he  addressed,  it  is  true, 
a  letter  to  Congress,  advising  them  generally  of  the  proposed  mediation 
of  Spain,  and  inviting  them  to  furnish  with  ^'  the  necessary  powers  and 
instructions  the  person  or  persons  whom  they  shall  think  proper  to  au- 
thorize to  assist  in  the  deliberations  and  in  the  conclusion  and  signing" 
of  the  proposed  treaty.  We  learti,  also,  from  the  journals  that  Gerard, 
on  February  11,  had  a  ^'free  conference  with  Congress"  as  to  the  terms 
of  the  intended  negotiations.  That  the  suggestion  of  the  alternative 
of  a  truce  was  made  by  him  informally,  we  may  gather  from  the  report 
of  the  committee  on  pacification,  made  on  February  23,  1779,  in  which 
it  is  stated  that  the  committee  thought  that  no  truce  ought  to  be  agreed 
to  on  the  part  of  the  United  States;  that  a  cessation  of  hostilities  during 
the  negotiations  mag  he  admitted  in  case  all  the  force  of  the  enemy  shall  he 
ivithdr  awn  from  every  post  and  place  within  the  limits  of  the  United  tStates.^^ 
No  action  appears  to  have  been  taken  on  this  portion  of  the  report. 
But  on  June  15, 1781,  in  the  instructions  from  Congress  to  its  ministers 
plenipotentiary  occurs  the  following:  "If  a  difficulty  should  arise  in 
the  course  of  the  negotiation  for  peace  from  the  backwardness  of  Great 
Britain  to  acknowledge  our  independence,  you  are  at  liberty  to  agree  to 
a  truce,  or  to  make  such  other  concessions  as  may  not  affect  the  sub- 
stance of  what  we  contend  for,  and  provided  that  Great  Britain  is  not 
left  in  possession  of  any  part  of  the  United  States."  This  instruction 
was  in  accordance  with  a  resolution  passed  by  an  almost  unanimous 
vote  of  Congress  on  June  9,  1781,  receiving  the  votes  of  every  delega- 
tion except  Rhode  Island  and  Virginia.  From  Rhode  Island,  Varnum, 
the  sole  delegate  present,  voted  in  the  negative ;  Virginia  was  divided, 
Jones  and  Madison  in  the  affirmative.  Bland  and  Smith  in  the  negative. 
If  Franklin  made  any  communication  to  Congress  as  to  the  suggestion 

439 


§  86.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  V. 

of  a  truce  iu  1779,  such  communication  does  not  appear  among  his 
papers;  nor  is  it  likely  that  he  would  have  addressed  Congress  on  the 
subject,  as  the  suggestion  was  made  confidentially  to  himself,  and  as 
Vergenues  undertook  to  leave  the  mentioning  the  project  to  Congress 
to  the  discretion  of  Gerard.  We  have,  however,  a  letter  from  Franklin 
to  Hartley  of  May  4, 1779  (in  response  to  one  Vergennes  notices  having 
been  shown  him),  in  which  Franklin  says:  '-Though  I  think  a  direct, 
immediate  peace  the  best  mode  of  present  accommodation  to  Britain 
as  well  as  for  America,  yet,  if  that  is  not  at  this  time  practicable,  I 
should  not  be  against  a  truce  ;  but  this  is  merely  on  grounds  of  general 
humanity,  to  obviate  the  evils  men  devilishly  inflict  on  men  in  time  of 
war,  and  to  lessen  as  much  as  possible  the  similarity  between  earth  and 
hell."  He  goes  on  to  say  that  '^  this  proposition  of  a  truce,  if  made  at 
all,  should  be  made  to  France  at  the  same  time  it  is  made  to  America; 
twenty-one  years  would  be  better  for  all  sides,  *  *  *  and  British 
troops  and  ships  of  war  now  in  any  of  the  United  States  be  withdrawn," 
American  independence  to  be  thereby  recognized,  and  the  binding 
effect  of  the  American  treaties  with  France.  This  letter,  which  was 
seen  and  approved  by  Yergennes,  was  not  sent  until  after  the  final  rup- 
ture between  Spain  and  Britain,  and  may  be  regarded,  therefore,  as 
giving  the  explanation  by  Franklin  and  Vergennes  of  their  views  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  truce  which  Spain  proposed.  By  the  middle  of  March 
the  British  ministry  became  convinced  that  the  terms  of  a  general 
peace,  as  proposed  by  Spain,  could  not  be  accepted  without  a  humilia- 
tion to  which  they  were  unwilling  to  submit. 

On  April  12  was  executed  the  secret  convention  between  France  and 
Spain,  which  has  been  considered  in  a  prior  section,*  by  which  the 
terms  of  their  alliance  were  settled.  Franklin  was  not  aware  of  the 
particular  limitations  of  this  convention  ;  but  he  knew  that  the  nego- 
tiations between  Spain  and  the  United  States  were  broken  off,  and  that 
Spain  had  declared  war  against  Britain,  determined  to  join  her  fleet  to 
that  of  France  as  against  the  common  enemy.  It  was  with  this  knowl- 
edge, and  with  the  conviction  that  Britain,  having  refused  to  enter  into 
a  treaty  for  a  general  peace,  was  now  seeking  to  detach  the  United 
States  from  their  allies  by  covert  approaches,  that  Franklin  wrote  his 
letter  of  May  4,  1779,  to  Hartley  in  response  to  Hartley's  letter  to  him 
of  April  22,  1779.t 

How  far  the  I'ranco-Spanish  treaty  of  April,  1779,  conflicted  with 
the  Fran  CO- American  treaty  of  February,  1778,  has  been  already  dis- 
cussed4 

The  attitude  of  the  British  Government  to  Spain  on  the  mediation 
question  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  correspondence. 

*  Supra,  ^  53. 

+  See  these  letters,  infra,  under  their  respective  dates. 

t  Supra,  ^  53  ;  see  also  Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolutiou,  59^. 

440 


CRAP,  v.]  ATTITUDE    OF    SPAIN.  [§86. 

Grantham,  British  minister  at  Madrid,  writes  to  Weymouth,  secre- 
tary of  state,  on  May  20,  1778,  as  follows  : 

*'  I  stated  to  M.  d'Escarano  (Spanish  minister  at  London)  that  previous  to  any  step 
for  that  purpose  (mediation)  the  immediate  insult  offered  to  this  country  must  he 
done  away;  and  that  whilst  France  pnhlicJij  avowed  the  independence  and  supiioried  the 
cause  of  the  Colonies  in  rebellion,  no  negotiations  could  he  entered  into.* 

The  mediation  was  afterwards  accepted  so  far  as  concerns  the  con- 
test with  France  as  such,  but  was  refused  in  all  matters  pertaining  to 
the  United  States. 

"The  terms  to  he  granted  to  colonies  in  such  predicament  can  not  he  suhniitted  to 
other  powers,  who  can  not  ho  judges  of  the  line  of  authority  which  the  mother  country 
should  extend  over  her  colonies,  and  the  terms  which  miglit  he  thought  reasonahle 
in  Europe  might  ho  rejected  m  America."  t  (Weymouth  to  Grantham,  Octoer  27, 
1778,  Bancroft  MSS.) 

Spain,  however,  insisted  that  the  United  States  should  be  a  part3^  to 
the  mediation,  though  to  save  the  feelings  of  the  British  king  there 
should  be  a  long  truce  granted,  which,  thougli  a  tacit  acknowledg- 
ment of  independence,  would  not  be  as  bitter  a  surrender  as  would  be 
an  express  acknowledgment. 

Florida-Blanca,  in  his  instructions  of  January  20,  1779,  to  Almodo- 
var,  Spanish  minister  at  London,  states  that  the  proposition  of  Spain 
was  that  his  Britannic  majesty  "  should  agree  to  a  truce  of  twenty-five 
or  thirty  years  (with  the  United  States),  during  which  period  there 
would  be  time  to  cool,  and  even  extinguish  the  heat  of  the  present  dis- 
cords and  attract  the  hearts  of  the  colonists  to  decent  expedients  and 
accommodations,  useful  to  themselves  and  to  the  English  nation.  For 
this  purpose  it  would  be  necessary  that  during  the  truce  there  should 
be  established  a  communication  and  even  a  free  and  reciprocal  trade 
between  England  and  the  Colonies  without  hindering  them  from  hav- 
ing the  use  of  an  equal  free  trade  with  other  nations.  It  would  be  also 
just  that  the  court  of  London  should  during  the  truce  treat  the  Colo- 
nies as  independent  in  fact,  until  some  adjustment  or  accommodation 
with  them,  which  afterwards  might  be  made,  should  produce  effects  ac- 
cording to  what  should  be  stipulated.^"  ''  It  was  also  considered  proper 
that  the  Colonies  in  order  to  enter  into  either  of  the  proposed  expe- 
dients, may  require  that  England  should  evacuate  the  ports  and  ter- 
ritories it  possesses  in  the  districts  of  the  British  provinces  which  are 
called  United."J  This  proposition  being  rejected, §  Spain's  ultimatum 
of  mediation  was  addressed  to  the  courts  of  London  and  Paris  on 
April  19,  1779.  This  iiUimatum  was  finally  rejected  by  Weymouth 
May  4,  1779.     Spain  then  withdrew  her  offer  of  mediation,  and  this  was 

*  That  the  Spanish  court  was  notified  of  this  answer,  see  Grantham  to  Weymouth, 
June  1,  1778,  Bancroft  MSS. 

t  See  Grantham  to  Weymouth,  Jan.  — ,  1779,  Bancroft  MSS. 

t  Bancroft  MSS. 

$  Weymouth  to  Grantham,  Mar.  IG,  1779. 

441 


§  87.]  INTRODUCTION.  CHAP.  V.] 

followed,  ou  June  19,  1779,  by  a  note  from  Florida-Blanca  to  Grantham, 
stating  that  the  Spanish  minister  was  recalled  from  London.  Gran- 
tham was  shortly  after  recalled  from  Madrid,  and  diplomatic  inter- 
course closed.* 

The  subsequent  temper  of  Spain  is  illustrated  by  the  following  extracts  from  a  dis- 
patch of  January  11,  1782,  troiu  Montiuoriu,  French  minister  at  Madrid,  to  Vergeunea 
the  topic  being  a  probable  iusurrection  at  Jamaica : 

*'I  have  no  need  to  tell  you,  sir,  how  much  the  forming  a  rex>ublic  in  these  regions 
"would  displease  Spain,  and  in  fact  I  believe  that  that  would  neither  suit  her  inter- 
ests nor  ours.  *  *  *  For  the  rest,  I  think,  sir,  that  if  the  Spaniards  unite  with  us 
for  the  conquest  of  Jamaica  we  must  expect  more  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  in- 
habitants than  if  we  were  alone.  You  know,  sir,  how  much  Spanish  rule  is  dreaded 
throughout  all  America,  and  in  truth  it  is  so  with  reason.  There  reigns  in  almost  all 
the  possessions  of  that  power  in  America  a  discontent  of  which  I  think  the  conse- 
quences are  to  be  feared.  These  troubles  in  the  Spanish  colonies  obtain  for  us  from 
Spain  some  facilities  in  the  progress  of  the  campaign;  they  increase  the  aversion  of 
her  ministry  to  any  connection  with  the  United  States  of  America."  (1  Bancroft's 
History  of  the  Constitution,  289.) 
As  to  the  character  of  Charles  III,  see  7  Winsor's  Narrative,  etc.,  6. 
MiraleSjt  who  came  to  Philadelphia  from  Spain  in  1780  on  a  mission  of  inquiry,  was 
so  far  imbued  with  the  prejudices  of  his  principals  as  to  be  incapable  of  giving  in  re- 
turn a  fair  account  of  American  affairs.  The  more  he  saw  the  more  he  was  appalled 
at  the  spectacle  of  the  United  States  not  merely  wresting  the  Mississippi  valley  from 
Spain,  but  inciting  Spanish  South  America  to  revolt.  And  he  no  doubt  injected  his 
anxieties  into  Luzerne,  so  as  to  make  that  sympathetic  minister  at  least  in  part  their 
participant.     (See  5  Bancroft's  United  States,  301.) 

Mirales,  though  not  at  first  officially  accredited  to  Congress,  was  received  by  it  in- 
formally, so  far  as  to  enable  him  to  confer  in  December,  1779,  with  a  committee  as  to  a 
joint  movement  of  Spain  and  the  United  States  against  the  British  settlements  in 
Florida.  The  formal  difficulty  was  overcome  by  an  assurance  received  from  Luzerne, 
the  minister  of  France,  that  Mirales  was  authorized  to  speak  the  views  of  Spain. 
Mirales  had  at  the  time  letters  from  the  Spanish  ministry  to  the  effect  that  ho  was 
to  have  the  mission  to  the  United  States  as  soon  as  it  was  constituted.  In  February, 
1780,  Mirales  gave  it  to  be  understood  that  Spain  would  be  willing  to  sell  Florida  to 
the  United  States. 

Grant  ofa  million  of  francs        ^  S7 .  It  was  undcr  the  flrst  of  thesc  i)olicies  that 

in  1776.  ^  ^ 

King  Charles  III,  without  the  knowledge  of  any  of 
his  ministers  except  Grimaldi,  contributed,  ou  June  27,  1776,  1,000,000 
of  francs  to  the  fund  which  Vergennes  was  then  raising  to  sustain  the 
American  revolt.  In  addition  to  this  subsidy,  shipments  were  sub- 
sequently made  through  Gardoqui  of  military  stores  for  the  use  of  Con- 
gress, for  which  Spain  supplied  the  money  requisite  for  the  purchase,  j: 
Of  the  activity  of  this  ageucy  the  British  Government  obtained  in- 
formation in  the  summer  of  1777  : 

The  house  of  Gardoqui  is  very  active.  They  have  long  had  connection  with  Great 
Britain  and  America;  but  in  the  present  contest,  though  they  pretend  to  wish  it  was 


*  As  to  the  attitude  of  Congress  in  respect  to  a  truce,  see  index,  title  "  Truce." 

t  See  index,  title  Mirales. 

t  See  Sparks  in  North  Amer.  Rev.  for  April,  1830. 

442 


CHAP,  v.]  ATTITUDE    OF    SPAIN.  [§  87. 

endcil,  tluiy  have  adhered  to  the  latter  with  <;ieat  partiality.  (Grantham,  British 
uiiuister  at  Madrid,  to  Weymouth,  August  11,  1777.     Bancroft  MSS.) 

Very  positive  iuforuiatiou  has  been  received  that  the  court  of  Spain  has  supplied 
them  (Congress)  with  mouey,  together  with  arms  and  ammunition  to  a  considerable 
amount,  from  the  Havanas  and  from  New  Orleans,  and  the  rebels  understand  that 
they  are  not  to  be  called  upon  to  pay  either  the  sums  advanced  or  the  stores  furnished 
them.  (Weymouth,  secretary  of  state,  to  Granth;iuj,  British  minister  at  Madrid,  Oc- 
tober 28,  1777.) 

As  to  Si)anish  remittances  to  Anunica,  see  Gardoqui  to  Arthur  Lee,  April  28,  1777; 
Arthur  Lee  to  Gardoqui,  May  8, 1777,  and  see,  as  to  his  services  and  his  subsequent  ap- 
pointment to  represent  Spain  in  the  United  States,  index,  title  Gardoqui. 

Fiorida-Biauca.  §  gg,  Florida-Blaiica  (Fran§ois  Antoiue  Monino),  born 

in  1729,  who  became  prime  minister  of  Spain  in  February, 
1777,  in  the  place  of  d'Esquihiche,  was  educated  as  a  notary,  of  family  far 
from  patrician,  but  dev^otiug  himself  to  diplomacy  with  such  success 
that  before  arriving  at  middle  life  he  was  Spanish  ambassador  at  Rome. 
It  was  to  liis  influence  that  the  Jesuits  were  suppressed  and  Ganga- 
nelli  was  elected  pope.  Florida-Blanca  was  in  his  forty-seventh  year 
when  he  accepted  the  direction  of  Spanish  policy;  and  he  brought  to 
the  post  strong  sense,  incorruptibility,  great  experience,  and  liberal 
views,  which,  though  tempered  by  caution  and  self-consciousness,  were 
in  advance  of  the  age.*  He  was  devoted  to  Charles  III,  following  the 
hitter's  Erastian  policy  as  opposed  to  the  aggressions  of  the  church. 
He  shared  the  popular  Spanish  dislike  to  England,  but  he  felt  that 
Spain  was  not  prepared  for  war,  and,  while  loyal  to  the  family  alliance 
of  the  Bourbon  kings,  his  national  pride  made  him  jealous  of  French 
ascendency.  A  royalist  witliout  the  philosophic  enthusiasm  of  Turgot, 
he  looked  coldly  on  the  Colonies  as  a  republic;  a  Spanish  imperialist, 
desiring  to  preserve  the  Spanish  dependencies  in  America,  he  could 
not,  however  much  he  might  be  willing  to  help  on  a  revolt,  take  a  hand 
in  giving  prominence  to  a  revolution.  To  his  counsels  may  be  attrib- 
uted the  delays  imposed  on  the  reception  of  American  ministers  at 
Madrid,  and  the  coldness  with  which  these  ministers  were  received 
when,  from  Spain  joining  the  alliance  against  England,  such  reception 
became  necessary,  t 

On  March  30,  1782,  Montmorin  wrote  to  Vergennes  that  "  Florida-Blanca  has  never 
been  willing  to  declare  himself  openly  for  the  United  States,  and  at  this  very  moment 
he  seems  to  draw  back  from  them  more  than  ever."  (1  Bancroft's  History  of  the 
Constitution,  291.) 

Florida-Blanca  in  February,  1778,  declared  to  Grantham  that  he  had  no  j^art  what- 
ever in  the  French  councils,  but  offered  to  mediate  by  confining  the  United  States  to 
ths  Atlantic  sea  coast,  giving  the  St.  Lawrence  valley  to  Britain,  and  retaining  the 
Mississippi  valley  as  far  east  as  the  Alleghenies  for  Spain.  (Grantham  to  Weymouth, 
March  12,  1778.) 

But  even  this  limited  acknowledgment  of  independence  was  then  peremptorily  re- 
fused by  the  British  minister.     (Weymouth  to  Grantham,  May  20,  1778.) 

*  See  8  Larousse,  506. 

+  As  to  his  diplomatic  correspondence,  see  index,  title  Florida-Blanca. 

443 


•5,89    ]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  V. 

Aranda.  §  89.  Aranda  ((^^ouut  de  Arauda),  wliose  name  frequently 

appears  in  the  following  volumes,  was  Spanish  ambassador 
at  Paris  during  the  revolution,  and  was  a  strong  supporter  of  the  Bour- 
bon family  compact  and  of  the  movements  of  Vergennes  in  favor  of 
the  insurgent  Colonies.  Born  in  1718,  of  an  illustrious  Aragon  family, 
he  was  first  trained  iu  the  army,  and  then,  after  a  mission  to  Poland, 
he  became  president  of  the  Castilian  council  in  1765,  in  which  capacity 
he  took  part  in  the  expulsion  of  the  Jesuits  in  1767.  He  was  sent  to 
Paris  as  ambassador  in  1773. 

By  nature  proud,  impetuous,  restless,  and  obstinate,  he  had  never  disciplined  his 
temper,  and  his  manners  were  ungenial.  A  soldier  in  early  life,  he  had  been  attracted 
to  Prussia  by  the  fame  of  Frederic ;  he  admired  Voltaire,  D'Alerabert,  and  Rousseau ; 
and  in  France  he  was  honored  for  his  superiority  to  superstition.  His  haughty  self- 
dependence  and  force  of  will  just  fitted  him  for  the  service  of  Charles  III  in  suppress- 
ing the  riots  of  Madrid  and  driving  the  Jesuits  from  Spain.  As  an  administrative 
reformer  he  began  with  too  much  vehemence  ;  but  thwarted  by  the  stiff  formalities 
of  officials  and  the  jealousies  of  the  clerical  party,  he  withdrew  from  court  to  fill  the 
embassy  at  Paris,  where  he  was  tormented  by  an  unquiet  eagerness  for  more  active 
employment.  His  system  was  marked  by  devoteduess  to  the  French  alliance  and 
hatred  of  Englaud,  on  whose  i^rosperity  and  power  he  longed  to  see  France  and  Spain 
inflict  a  mortal  blow.  But  he  was  a  daring  schemer  and  bad  calculator  rather  than 
a  creative  or  sagacious  statesman,  and  on  much  of  the  diplomatic  business  with 
France  relating  to  America  he  was  not  consulted. 

On  the  29th  of  December,  1776,  and  again  six  days  later,  the  American  commission- 
ers held  secret  but  barren  interviews  with  Arauda.  He  could  only  i^romise  American 
privateers,  with  their  prizes,  the  same  security  in  Spanish  ports  which  they  found  in 
those  of  France;  he  had  no  authority  to  expound  the  intentions  of  the  king.  His 
opinions,  which  passionatioly  favored  the  most  active  measures  in  behalf  of  America, 
were  known  at  Madrid  and  passed  unheeded.     (9  Bancroft's  United  States,  288.  *) 

Storuiont,  iu  a  dispatch  of  March  26,  1777,  to  Weymouth,  says: 

"Franklin  and  Deaue  have  had  some  secret  interviews  with  Count  D'Aranda ; 
these  have  not,  however,  been  frequent ;  Count  Aranda  has  advised  them  to  avoid 
it,  and  has,  I  am  informed,  talked  to  them  in  the  following  manner:  'If  you  were  to 
see  me  often  it  might  injure  your  cause.  I  have  many  enemies  at  home  ;  I  am  known 
to  be  eager  for  war;  it  is  my  opinion,  my  principle,  and  I  of  course  act  up  to  it;  I 
never  deviate  from  or  conceal  my  real  sentiments,  but  as  these  sentiments  do  not  fall 
in  with  the  wishes  of  some  considerable  persons  both  in  and  out  of  Spain,  too  great 
intercourse  between  you  and  me  might  be  prejudicial  to  your  cause,  to  which  I  wish 
every  success  ;  my  court  might  perhaps  be  less  disposed  to  favor  it  if  it  was  openly 
and  warmly  espoused  by  me.  I  am,  however,  authorized  to  inform  you  that  my  court 
will  assist  you  with  a  sum  of  money,  will  go  as  far  as  100,000  pounds.'  (2  Hale's 
Franklin  in  France,  429.  )t  Aranda  is  coupled  by  Horace  Walpole  with  Sartine  as 
'  the  principal  incendiaries  of  the  war.'"  (Walpole  to  Sir  Horace  Mann,  November 
12,  1779;  7  Cunningham's  Walpole,  271.) 

*  As  to  Aranda's  position,  see  interesting  observations  iu  Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the 
Revolution,  71,  86. 

t  See  Deane  to  committee,  etc.,  Aug.  18,  1776;  Franklin  to  Aranda,  Apr.  7,  1777, 
index,  title  Aranda. 

444 


CHAPTER  VL 

ATTITUDE  OF  OTHER  EUROPEAN  STATES. 

^''"'''iLounJ^o^eiTir'''^  *""        §  ^^-  ^s  long  as  Frederick  the  Great  regarded 

tlie  Americau  disturbances  as  a  mere  revolt  he 
was  disposed  to  regard  them  with  cynical  satisfaction.  He  thoroughly 
disliked  Britain,  notwithstanding  his  relationship  to  the  British  reign- 
ing family  ;  he  was  attached  to  the  literature  and  language  of  France; 
he  was  irritated  at  the  overbearing  assumptions  of  Britain  as  mistress 
of  the  seas.  Could  America  be  kept  in  a  state  of  chronic  revolt  it  would 
be  a  good  thing,  so  he  thought,  for  Europe ;  and,  aside  from  this,  he  con- 
ceived a  great  respect  for  Washington,  whose  strategy  in  the  siege  of 
Boston  he  highly  commended.  When  the  Kevolution  was  in  its  earlier 
stages  Frederick  did  not  hesitate  to  express  these  views,  and  almost  to 
promise  recognition  in  case  of  such  recognition  being  previously  given 
by  other  great  powers.  He  declined,  also,  to  permit  the  troops  Britain 
had  been  hiring  in  Europe  to  cross  his  territory,  thereby  not  merely. ex- 
pressing his  detestation  of  this  mode  of  warfare  by  mercenaries,  but 
virtually  acknowledging  the  United  States  as  belligerents.* 

Chanjre  of  policy  when  recos?-         §91.  When  Fraucc  acknowledged   the  iude- 

nition  would    involve  war  /•    i       t-t    •       -  n 

with  Britain.  pcudeuce  ot  the  United  states,  and  thus  involved 

herself  in  a  war  with  Britain,  Frederick,  so  far 
from  following  her  example  in  this  acknowledgment,  found  this  ex- 
ample a  sufficient  reason  why  acknowledgment  should  be  refused.  He 
was  trying  to  build  up  Prussian  commerce,  and  when  could  a  better 
chance  of  doing  this  occur  to  him  than  that  offered  by  a  war  in  which 
he  could  be  neutral,  while  the  merchant  ships  of  England  and  France 
were  almost  driven  from  the  seas  by  the  opposing  belligerents'  priva- 
teers. He  had  entered  also  into  the  armed  neutrality,  by  which  British 
seizures  of  enemies'  property  under  neutral  flags  was  to  be  stopped ; 
but  this  league  could  only  be  broken  by  neutrals.  He  no  doubt  also 
was  irritated  at  the  disrespect  with  which  he  was  treated  by  Arthur 
Lee,  who  took  up  his  abode  as  American  minister  at  Berlin  without 
even  an  intimation  that  he  would  be  there  received.  Hence  it  was  that 
when  Arthur  Lee's  papers  were  stolen  from  his  desk  at  Berlin  by  direc- 


*  See  index,  titles  Frederick  the  CJreat,  Prussia.     See,  as  showing  Frederick's  sym- 
patliy  with  the  Revolution  at  its  outset,  citation  in  10  Bancroft's  United  States,  100  jf. 

445 


§  91.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

tion  of  Elliot,  British  minister  there  resident,*  Frederick,  though  he 
had  previously  acknowledged  the  United  States  as  a  belligerent  power, 
and  though  it  was  then  as  now  acknowledged  that  envoys  from  a  bellig- 
erent to   a  neutral  are  entitled  to  diplomatic  privileges,  instead  of 
sending  Elliot  home  as  a  rebuke  for  such  an  outrage,  treated  the  out- 
rage as  a  joke,  as  if  Arthur  Lee  and  his  papers  wqv^.  ferce  natune^  which 
it  was  no  offense  to  abduct,  t     In  the  same  spirit  of  contemptuous  aver- 
sion to  the  United  States  was  dictated  the  letter  to  xlrthur  Lee,  refusing 
to  permit  William  Lee  even  to  visit  Berlin,  to  which  he  was  accredited.^: 
Some  allowance  may  perhaps  be  made  for  irritation  at  the  mixture  of 
unceremoniousness  and  obsequiousness  which  marked  the  letters  of  the 
Lees  to  Frederick ;  but,  however  this  may  have  been,  both  Arthur  and 
William  Lee,  it  must  be  remembered,  were  accredited  to  Frederick  by 
the  United  States,  whose  status  as  a  belligerent  Frederick  had  already 
recognized ;  and  that  to  subject  them,  or  permit  them  to  be  subjected, 
to  indignities  at  Berlin  can  only  be  explained  by  assuming  that  Fred- 
erick was  changing  his  course  as  to  the  Revolution,  and  that  he  was 
determined  to  submit  even  to  invasion  of  his  own  rights  by  Britain 
rather  than  run  the  risk  of  war,  by  which  his  ''  mercantile  marine"  would 
not  only  lose  the  rich  neutral  trade  it  was  then  enjoying,  but  would  be 
swept  from  the  seas  by  British  cruisers.    It  was  in  the  same  spirit  of 
politic  propitiation  of  Britain  that  he  informed  the  British  minister  that 
he  had  refused  to  Congress  the  use  of  the  port  of  Embden  as  a  base  for 
American  naval  operations.  §     It  was  not  until  the  hnal  acknowledg- 
ment of  American  independence  by  Britain,  consequent  on  the  defini- 
tive peace,  that  Frederick,  having  no  longer  any   neutral  interest  to 
maintain,  found  himself  in  a  position  when  advances  could  properly 
come  from  him.    And  they  came  in  the  shape  of  informal  suggestions 
to  Franklin,  which  ended  in  the  treaty  of  1785,  in  which  Franklin,  Jeffer- 
son, and  Adams  acted  for  the  United  States  and  Thulemeier  for  Prussia. 

Frederick's  cynical  eye  saw  no  future  greatness  for  the  United  States  as  a  republic. 
*'The  American  Union,"  lie  said  to  Sir  John  Stepney,  British  envoy  at  Berlin,  on 
October  22,  1782,  "could  not  long  subsist  nuder  its  present  form.  The  great  extent 
of  country  would  alone  be  a  sufficient  obstacle,  since  a  republican  government  had 
never  been  known  to  exist  for  any  length  of  time  where  the  territory  was  not  limited 
and  concentered.  It  would  not  be  more  absurd  to  propose  the  establishment  of  a  de- 
mocracy to  govern  the  whole  country  from  Brest  to  Riga.  No  inference  could  be 
drawn  from  the  States  of  Venice,  Holland,  and  Switzerland,  of  which  the  situation 
and  circumstances  were  perfectly  different  from  those  of  the  colonies."  (MSS.  quoted 
1  Bancroft's  History  of  the  Constitution,  71.) 


*  See  mfra,  A.  Lee  to  commissioners  at  Paris,  June  28,  1777,  and  note  thereto. 

Prussia's  aid  to  America  during  the  Revolution  is  discussed  by  Mr.  Bancroft  with  a 
friendliness  which  has  called  forth  the  criticism  of  Doniol.     (3,  117.) 

t  See  more  particularly  infra,  §  144,  193 ;  and  note  to  A.  Lee  to  commissioners, 
June  28,  1777. 

X  Sec  infra  J  ^  177. 

§>  10  Bancroft's  United  States,  111 ;  see  W.  Lee  to  Thomson,  Jan.  2.  1778,  infra. 

44G 


CHAP.  VI.]       ATTITUDE    OF    OTHER    EUROPExVN    STATES.     [§§  92,  93. 

Kussia:  C:Uharine\s  ambition  §  9^>.    Xo  a  politiCtll  oeiliuS  of  sinfifulaT  boUllieSS 

to  lead  Em  ope.  j  i  o  o 

and  conipieliensiveiiess  Catharine  II  added  an 
ambition  which  was  stinmhitcd  by  unbounded  flattery,  not  only  at  home 
but  abroad.  Her  power  was  autocratic,  her  resources,  apparently 
enormous,  had  the  reputation  of  bein^  boundless.  But  even  giving 
them  a  ujoderate  estimate,  they  would  be  capable,  if  wielded  by  a  mon- 
arch so  energetic  as  Catharine,  of  decidiug  the  fate  of  Europe,  when 
Britain,  on  the  one  hand,  was  arrayed  against  France,  Spain,  and  llol- 
laiul  on  the  other.  Hence  it  was  that,  desperately  and  conspicuously 
profligate  as  were  her  morals,  with  the  guilt  of  conniving  at  her  hus- 
band's assassination  clinging  to  her,  and  parading  her  licentiousness  so 
that  her  male  favorites  were  exhibited  as  unblushingly  as  were  the 
female  favorites  of  Louis  XV,  she  was  courted  by  her  fellow  nionarchs 
with  an  assiduity  which  would  be  incredible  were  it  not  brought  before 
us  in  the  correspondence  of  Lord  Malmesbury  (when  Sir  James  Hariis) 
while  representing  George  III  at  the  court  of  Catharine.  Even  Dana, 
sent  by  Congress  to  solicit  her  recognition,  did  not  think  it  unsuitable 
for  him,  when  knocking  patiently  for  admittance,  to  speak  to  the  min- 
ister whom  he  addressed,  of  the  respect  felt  by  Congress  for  her  majes- 
ty's virtues,  as  well  as  for  her  great  political  genius.  It  is  no  wonder 
that,  addressed  by  adulation  so  gross  and  so  universal,  Catharine 
should  become  the  more  set  in  the  admiration  of  her  own  autocratic 
greatness  as  time  moved  on.* 

Russian  policy  to  build  up        §  93.  Asidc  from  her  natural  repugnance,  as  an 

neutral      commerce,      and  i  ^i       i         .         ,       t 

hence  the  armed  neutrality,     autocrat,  to  rcvolts,  Catharine  had  uo  particular 

desire  to  put  an  end  to  the  war  by  thowing  her 
weight  with  the  allies,  who  had  already  superior  strength.  French, 
Spanish,  British,  American  merchant  vessels  were  driven  from  the 
seas  by  belligerent  privateers.  Now  was  the  time  for  Eussia  to  build 
up  an  immense  carrying  trade.  She  had  ports;  she  had  a  hardy  popu- 
lation that  could  be  turned  into  the  merchant  service.  This  oppor- 
tunity she  would  lose  if  she  became  a  belligerent  herself.  To  aid  in 
building  up  this  merchant  service^  she  had  devised  the  project  of  an 
armed  neutrality,  a  league  to  enforce  the  rule  that  free  ships  make  free 
goods.  In  this  project  she  induced  the  other  northern  courts  to  join;! 
the  parties  to  this  league  agreeing  to  defend  its  principles  by  arms. 
Congress,  ill  advised  of  the  position  of  Eussia  as  to  this  alliance,  in- 
structed its  minister  (Dana)  to  profess  to  accede  to  it.  But  the  admis- 
sion of  the  United  States  as  a  party  would  have  operated  to  defeat  the 
prime  object  of  the  alliance,  which  was  the  fostering  of  nonbelligerent 
commerce;  and  Eussian  commerce  would  have  ceased  to  be  non-bellig- 


*  See  Dana  to  Livingston,  May  2,  1783 ;  and  see  generally  titles  Russia,  Dana,  in 
index  ;  as  to  Dana,  see  infra,  ^  168  ;  see  Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution,  73^. 

+  See  2  Tooke's  Catharine,  II,  431  ff.;  as  to  armed  neutrality,  see  Trescot's  Diplo- 
macy of  the  Revolution,  74,^, ;  Schuyler's  American  Diplomacy,  374. 

447 


§§  94, 95, 96.]  INTRODUCTION.  [chap.  VI. 

erent  if  by  ackuowledging  the  United  States  she  had  provoked  a  war 
with  Great  Britain. 

Position  as  to  mediation.  §  94,  ^^e  ambition  to  take  a  commanding  position 

in  Europe  induced  Catharine,  as  will  be  seen  more 
fully  hereafter,  to  join  with  the  Emperor  Joseph,  of  Germany,  in  a 
proposition  to  the  several  belligerent  European  courts  to  mediate  as  to 
their  respective  claims.  It  was  one  of  the  mosc  pregnant  illustrations 
of  the  corruption  of  politics  in  those  days  that  the  British  Government 
offered  Catharine  the  island  of  Minorca  if  she  would,  as  mediatrix, 
compel  France  to  withdraw  her  troops  from  America.*  This  proposi- 
tion Catharine  declined,  more,  however,  on  account  of  its  impractica- 
bility than  of  its  monstrosity.  But  however  this  may  have  been,  her 
position  as  mediator  precluded  her,  as  long  as  the  negotiations  for  me- 
diation were  outstanding,  from  any  acknowledgment  of  American 
independence.  Whether  the  French  acknowledgment  of  independence 
was  a  casus  belli  was  the  main  question  which  a  mediator  in  such  a  war 
would  have  to  treat;  and  Russia  could  not  acknowledge  an  independ- 
ence the  existence  of  which  the  war  was  waged  to  determine. 

Failure  of  Dana's  mission.        §95.  ^g  jj^ve  already  uoticed  the  general  ill 

effects  of  that  system  of  militie  diplomacy  which 
consisted  in  sending,  without  any  prior  inquiry  as  to  reception,  minis- 
ters to  foreign  courts  to  demand  not  merely  recognition  but  pecuniary 
aid.t  Of  these  ill  effects  the  humiliations  met  with  by  Dana  at  St. 
Petersburg  are  among  the  most  conspicuous.  He  was  a  scholar,  a  man 
of  singularly  high  tone,  and  subsequently  became  eminent  for  his 
public  services  both  in  Congress  and  on  the  bench.|  But  he  went  to 
St.  Petersburg  prejudiced  against  the  French  ambassador,  who  was 
the  only  diplomatist  there  who  would  recognize  him;  and  without  any 
means  whatever,  it  would  seem,  of  acquainting  himself  with  the  pecu- 
liar politics  of  the  Russian  court.  His  course  during  his  stay  in  Rus- 
sia, which  lasted  from  August,  1781,  to  September,  1783,  is  narrated  in 
his  letters,  which  will  be  found  in  order  of  dates  in  the  following  vol- 
umes, and  the  general  character  of  his  mission  is  noticed  in  a  subse- 
quent section. § 

Gorman ^emp^eror_ unfriendly  §  96.  Qf  the  Gcrmau  Empire,  uudcr  the  Em- 
peror Joseph  II,  we  notice  but  little  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages.  The  reformatory  and  philanthropic  principles  of  Joseph 
did  not  reach  so  far  as  to  sustain  a  revolution.  "  My  trade  is  that  of  a 
king,"  he  told  his  sister  when  on  a  visit  to  Paris ;  and  he  declined  when 

*Supra,  $  30.    As  to  this  mediation,  see  Treseot's  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution, 
102  ff. 
\  Supra,  $  19. 
t  Infra,  ^  168-170. 
^  Infra,  §  169. 

448 


CHAP.  VI.]       ATTITUDE    OF    OTHER    EUROPEAN    STATES.  [§  97. 

there  to  enter  iuto  political  coiiversiitiou  with  Americans  as  to  America. 
It  is  true  that  William  and  Arthur  Lee  informed  Congress  that  they 
had  heard  that  Joseph  would  receive  an  American  minister  if  sent,  and 
William  Lee,  wlien  residing  at  Brussels,  wrote  that  lie  had  heard  that  the 
emperor  would  like  to  see  an  American  resident  at  that  place.*  But 
William  Lee  found  that  when  he  attempted  to  reach  Vienna,  to  wiiich 
he  was  accredited,  he  was  peremptorily  warned  off;  nor  was  anything 
ever  received  from  the  emperor  showing  that  he  had  so  far  changed  his 
mind  as  to  take  the  very  odd  step  of  inviting  an  American  envoy  to 
reside  not  at  the  imperial  court  but  at  Brussels.  There  was  every 
reason  why  Joseph  IF,  wdiose  whole  importance  consisted  largely  in  the 
maintenance  of  monarchy,  would  have  considered  the  humiliation  of 
monarchy  by  colonists  as  an  act  which  he  ought  not  to  encourage.t  It 
was  not  until  178G  that  negotiations  for  a  treaty  with  Germany  were 
entered  upon  by  the  United  States. 

The  Neiheiiaiias.  §  97.  The  Netherlands,  at  the  earlier  period  of  the 

revolutionary    war,  were  torn  by  contending  parties, 
neither  of  which  obtained  absolute  ascendency.     These  were — 

(1)  The  Prince  of  Orange  and  the  supporters  of  his  family.  Irreso- 
lute and  indiscreet,  his  [)ersoual  affections,  so  far  as  he  had  any,  were 
towards  England,  to  which  his  family  were  allied  not  only  by  blood  but 
by  many  glorious  associations.  His  wife,  a  woman  of  great  energy,  who 
exercised  over  him  occasionally  much  influence,  was  a  niece  of  Freder- 
ick the  Great,  and  disposed  to  follow  her  uncle's  advice,  which  at  that 
time  pointed  rather  to  France  than  to  England. 

(2)  ^he  commercial  interests,  who  desired  above  all  things  to  keep 
out  of  the  war,  from  which,  as  the  great  neutral  carriers  of  the  world, 
they  were  gathering  enormous  profits.  As  they  were  not  only  the  great 
carriers  but  the  great  money-lenders  of  Europe,  it  was  not  likely  that 
by  lending  money  to  America,  even  if  the  security  Avere  alluring,  they 
would  permit  themselves  to  be  drawn  into  the  position  of  belligerents, 
and  thus  let  their  shipping  fall  a  prey  to  British  cruisers,  f 

(3)  The  aristocratic  party,  devoted  from  tradition  or  interest  or  fash- 
ion to  France,  always  had  much  influence  at  court,  and  sometimes  this 
influence  was  predominant.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  merits,  so 
far  as  concerned  industry  and  zeal,  of  Sir  Philip  Yorke,  British  minister 
at  The  Hague,  his  temper  was  overbearing,  giving  to  his  manner  at 


*  See  William  Lee  to  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  March  31,  1782;  and,  see  gener- 
ally index,  titles  Arthur  Lee  and  William  Lee. 

t  See  Arthur  Lee  to  committee,  July  29,  1777. 

t  That  Holland  and  all  otlier  maritime  European  i)ower8  would  suffer  from  the  in- 
dependence of  the  United  States  is  elaborately  argued  in  a  pamphlet  issued  in  Ley- 
den  in  June,  1781,  and  published  as  translated  in  Schlozer's  Briefwechsel,  1781, 
130/. 

In  the  Sparks  Collection,  vol.  72,  Harvard  College,  is  a  collection  of  extracts  from 
the  correspondence  of  Sir  Joseph  Yorke,  in  Holland,  from  Jan.,  1776,  to  Dec,  1780. 

29  WH  449 


§97.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

court  a  roLigliiiess  which  was  in  marked  contrast  with  the  courtesy  and 
tact  which  marked  the  French  legation.  The  social  prestige  of  France 
also  was  as  yet  unshaken  on  the  continent.  French  was  the  court  lan- 
guage; the  prevalent  literature  was  French;  the  Princess  of  Orange 
shared  her  uncle's  taste  for  French  ways,  and  if  Britain  controlled  the 
seas,  France  was  a  great  continental  power  at  the  very  gate  of  The 
Netherlands.  The  Netherlands,  therefore,  if  forced  to  decide  would 
have  been  compelled  to  choose  between  a  power  that  could  overrun 
them  on  land  and  a  power  that  could  rum  them  at  sea. 

(-1)  Liberals,  whose  enthusiasm  led  them  to  sympathize  with  freedom 
wherever  asserted.  But  the  liberals  formed  but  a  small  party  in  The 
Netherlands,  although  their  ability  aud  activity  brought  them  con- 
stantly before  the  public  eye. 

(5)  Federationists,  who  looked  to  forming  a  powerful  league  of  the 
northern  powers  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  an  armed  neutrality  for 
the  protection  of  non-belligerent  commerce  in  the  war  then  pending 
against  the  rapacity  of  British  cruisers.  The  interests  which  combined 
in  the  support  of  this  league  leaned  mainly  on  Catharine  II,  who  was 
its  originator.  The  influence  in  Europe  of  this  ambitious  inincess  was 
then  very  great,  and  she  threw  that  influence  in  favor  of  that  party  in 
The  Netherlands  which  sought,  under  the  banner  she  unfurled,  to  keep 
out  of  war,  and  to  sustain  that  armed  neutrality  which  it  was  hoped 
would  secure  neutral  commerce  from  belligerent  spoliation. 

These  were  the  prominent  parties  who,  in  that  critical  era,  strove  for 
the  direction  of  affairs  in  The  Netherlands.  The  fact  that  no  one  of 
them  was  strong  enough  to  control  public  affairs,  and  that  only  one  of 
them,  and  that  the  weakest,  had  any  sympathy  with  revolutionary  pol- 
itics, might  in  itself  have  been  a  sufficient  reason  to  hold  Congress 
back  from  sending  a  minister  to  The  Netherlands  to  borrow  money. 
But  aside  from  this  difficulty  an  almost  insuperable  bar  was  placed, 
by  the  peculiar  system  of  federation  there  existing,  in  the  way  of  any 
national  political  action  favorable  to  the  United  States. 

Of  these  considerations  Congress  was  not  aware  when  it  determined, 
in  1776,  to  send  a  minister  to  ask  alliance  and  money  from  The  Neth- 
erlands. Had  a  commercial  agent  been  sent  out  to  borrow  money  from 
Amsterdam  bankers,  tlien,  if  the  security  offered  had  been  sufficient,  the 
money  could  have  been  had  ;  and  tliis  turned  out  subsequently  to  be  the 
case  when  France  offered  to  guarantee  the  payment  of  loans  so  made. 
But  to  go  into  the  market  to  borrow  money  from  bankers  is  not  the  office 
of  a  political  envo}- ,  and  it  dishonors  both  him  and  his  country  to  clothe 
him  with  the  title  of  minister  when  his  sole  office  is  that  of  an  agent  for 
raising  money  from  unofficial  bankers.  And  to  obtain  a  loan  from  the 
government  of  The  Netherlands  was,  for  the  reasons  we  have  given,  im- 
possible so  long  as  The  Netherlands  remained  neutral  in  the  war  by 
which  both  continents  were  convulsed.  The  correspondence  that  will 
be  hereafter  given  will  show  how  fruitless  as  well  as  impolitic  wore  the 
450 


CHAP.  VI.]       ATTITUDE    OF    OTHER    EUROPEAN    STATES.  [§  97a. 

labors  of  our  political  aj»ents  in  The  Netlierlauds  so  loug  as  The  Neth- 
erlauds  were  able  to  keep  out  of  the  war.* 

^iStc^^''^''^'''*'''''''''^       §  07rt.  To  Tuscany  Congress  resolved  to  send  a 

minister  to  borrow  money,  and  Kalph  Izard,  then 
in  Paris,  was  selected  and  commissioned  for  the  purpose.  He  never 
left  Paris,  however,  Tuscany  resolutely  repelling  him  whenever  he  pro- 
posed to  start.  The  effect  of  his  mission  in  other  relations  is  elsewhere 
considered. t  Tuscany  was  a  third-rate  power,  which  was  without 
money  to  lend  or  political  influence  to  offer,  and  whose  politics  were 
remarkable  chiefl^^  for  their  servile  absolutism.  That  such  a  power 
would  refuse  to  permit  an  American  envoy  to  approach  it  no  person 
cognizant  of  the  condition  of  things  could  doubt.  Almost  at  the  very 
time  this  mission  was  instituted  the  Tuscan  court  was  in  such  dread 
of  George  III  that  it  resorted  to  the  un worthiest  of  subterfuges  to  keep 
out  of  Florence  the  brothers  of  that  monarch,  with  whom  at  the  time 
he  had  thought  proper  to  quarrel.  Yet  it  was  to  Tuscany  that  Izard 
was  sent  by  Congress  to  ask  both  recognition  and  mone3^ 


*  See  Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution,  8Zff. 
■\  Infra,  §  178  ;  aud  see  index,  title  Izard. 

451 


CHAPTER  VIL 


MEDIA  TION. 

By  Spain  ill  1778.  §  98.  The  iuterposition  of  Spain  l)y  way  of  iiiedi- 

atiou,  which  was  annoimced  by  Gerard  to  Congress 
on  February  9,  1771),  was  a  mere  preliminary  to  the  entrance  of  Spain 
into  the  Franco-American  alliance,  since  Spain  was  at  that  time  aware 
that  Britain  would  not  then  enter  into  any  negotiations  in  which  the 
United  States  were  to  be  treated  with  as  an  independent  power.  The 
negotiations  relating  to  this  mediation  have  been  already  detailed.* 

By  imperial  courts  in  1780.        §  QQ.  Xu  1780,  as  already  statcd,  the  Empress 

Catharine  II,  with  the  co-operation  of  the  Emperor 
Joseph  II,  proi)Osed  to  mediate  between  the  European  belligerents. 
The  correspondence  as  to  this  mediation  will  be  found  at  large  in  the 
following  volumes. t  The  impulse  to  this  movement  on  the  part  of 
Catharine  could  not  have  been  expectation  of  success,  since  she  knew 
that  France  would  refuse  to  accept  a  mediation  from  which  America 
was  excluded;  and  it  must  be  sought  in  that  restless  ambition  on  her 
part  which,  stimulated  by  the  flattery  of  the  leading  European  sover- 
eigns, prompted  her  to  assume  the  position  of  arbiter  in  all  questions 
in  which  Europe  and  Asia  vrere  concerned.|  The  prior  mediation  of 
Spain  failed  because  Britain  refused  to  enter  into  any  negotiation  which 
recognized  the  United  States  as  one  of  the  negotiating  powers ;  the 
mediation  of  the  imperial  courts  failed  because  France  made  such  rec- 
ognition of  the  United  States  a  sine  qua  non.  The  attempt  of  the  Brit- 
ish to  bribe  Catharine  in  case  she  should  undertake  the  part  of  mediator 
has  been  already  noticed. § 

*  Supra,  ^86. 

+  See  iudex,  title  Mediatiou. 

t  This  is  the  motive  assigned  by  Sir  James  Harris,  no  doubt  correctly,  ia  the  very 
interesting  paper  contained  in  the  tirst  volume  of  the  Malmcsbury  Correspondence. 
^  Sujrra,  §  30. 

452 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


QUESTIONS  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW  INVOLVED. 

Neutral  governments  can  not  ^   ]00.    It  WRS  COllCeclecl  bv  tlie  Freiicll  GoVCrU- 

lurnish  niouoy  or  arms  to  ■^  *' 

belligerents,  but  their  sub-     meiit  tliat  fov  it  to  fumisli  moiiev  or  arms  to 

jects  may.  "^ 

Congress,  tlieii  wagiug  a  war  of  insurrection 
against  Britain,  wonkl  be  a  violation  of  the  law  of  nations  and  a  legiti- 
mate casKs  heUl.  On  tlie  otlier  hand,  according  to  the  rules  of  interna- 
tional law  then  and  still  prevalent,  French  subjects  were  at  liberty, 
without  involving  France  in  a  breach  of  neutrality,  to  supply  the  in- 
surgents with  money  and  with  munitions  of  war;  such  sui)plies,  how- 
ever, being  contraband  and  liable  to  confiscation  if  seized  as  such  by 
Britain.  The  French  Government  not  only  desired  that  these  supplies 
should  be  given  to  America,  but  determined  to  promote  their  transmis- 
sion so  far  as  this  could  be  effected  without  exposing  it  to  the  charge  of 
direct  interference.  In  order  to  bring  the  case  within  the  range  of  at 
least  apparently  legitimate  neutral  operations  it  was  determined,  as  we 
have  seen,*  to  establish  a  mercantile  house  in  Paris  for  the  purpose  of 
selling  arms  to  Congress  in  exchange  for  American  produce  to  be  sent 
to  France. t  If  the  arms  so  were  sold,  the  fact  that  they  were  bought  from 
French  arsenals  would  not  itself  be  a  breach  of  neutrality  in  France; 
and  so  in  fact,  was  it  held  in  the  United  States  during  the  late  Franco- 
German  war,  ill  which  the  mere  fact  that  guns  purchased  at  one  of  the 
sales  of  surplus  arms  by  the  government 'were  sent  by  private  enter- 
prise to  one  of  the  belligerents  Was  agreed  not  to  impute  a  breach  of 
neutrality  by  the  United  States.  And  Vergenncs,  pursuing  this  line, 
declared  that  if  mercantile  houses  in  France  should  furnish  sujiplies  to 
the  American  insurgents  the  French  Government  conld  not  interfere, 
even  thougii  such  supplies  were  purchased  from  government  stores. 

French  Government  indirect-  ^   101.    Such     WaS    Yergeunes'    pOSitioll     aS     CX- 

Jy  sustained  by  tnrnisliing  ^  r?  x 

money  and  arms  l.)ii  house       hibitcd     tO     tllC     l)ublic    CVe.       But     SO    fCVerishlv 

engaged  in  lorwardingtliese 

supplies.  anxious  was  France  to  disenthral  herself  from 

what  appeared  to  be  the  vassalage  imposed  by 
the  treaty  of  17G3,  and  so  impetuous  became  the  appeals  of  tlie  French 
enthusiasts  of  high  rank  who  had  espoused  tlie  American  cause,  that 
Vergennes  determined  that  not  only  should  business  agencies  organize 

*  Supra,  $  61.  t  Supra  §§  53  /.  61 . 

453 


§  102.]  INTRODUCTION.  [cHAP.  VIII. 

to  supply  arms  and  clothing  to  the  United  States  be  aided  by  the  govern- 
ment, but  that  he  would  assist  in  the  organization  of  such  agencies. 
And  he  consoled  himself  by  the  reflection  that  in  so  doing  he  was  not 
advancing  beyond  the  line  laid  down  by  England  in  her  conduct  to  in- 
surgents during  civil  wars  in  France.  Government  aid  therefore  was  to  be 
given,  but  it  was  to  be  concealed  by  every  diplomatic  art.  Of  all  men  in 
France  Beaumarchais  would  appear  to  be  the  least  likely  to  be  selected 
as  the  head  of  a  commercial  house;  *  and  Beaumarchais  was  then  employ- 
ed, and  judiciously  employed,  as  a  government  court  agent  in  America, 
not  merely  on  account  of  his  knowledge  of  these  affairs,  but  from  the 
fact  that  the  most  jealous  British  critic  could  hardly  suspect  him  of  being 
the  head  of  a  mercantile  firm  selected  to  lead  in  the  enterprise. 

Under  the  paternal  system  then  prevailing  in  France  royal  grants  of 
money  were  regarded  as  among  the  ordinary  essentials  to  the  establish- 
ment of  any  business  enterprise  by  which  the  public  could  be  benefited, 
and  here  was  a  proper  case  for  such  bounty,  since  it  was  obvious  that 
Beaumarchais'  house  under  his  name  could  not  succeed  without  extra- 
neous aid.  Congress  had  no  ready  money.  Paying  by  American  produce 
might  hereafter  be  made  hazardous  by  British  blockading  cruisers.  Any- 
how large  capital  was  required  to  start  the  enterprise,  and  from  private 
hands  large  capital  could  not  be  obtained.  Hence,  unless  in  this,  as  well 
as  in  other  business  enterprises,  the  king  did  not  step  in  with  a  bonus 
this  new  establishment  for  the  supplying  of  arms  to  belligerents  could 
not  be  put  in  motion. 

Both  France  and  Spain  felt  this,  and  each  of  them,  rankling  with  the 
mortifications  of  the  prior  war  with  England,  contributed  1,000,000 
francs  to  the  house  of  Kodrique  Hortalez  &  Co.,  which  was  the  busi- 
ness name  Beaumarchais  assumed.  A  few  months  afterwards  Ver- 
geunes  paid  the  American  commissioners  2,000,000  francs  in  gold,  to 
be  repaid  by  American  produce  or  in  currency.!  And  there  can  be  no 
question  that  arms  which  were  obtained  by  Beaumarchais  from  French 
arsenals  were  given  to  him  by  the  government  with  the  intention  that 
they  should  be  sent  to  America. 

This  is  a  breach  of  neutral-        §  102.  The  supply  of  moucy  by  Fraucc  to  the 

American  insurgents  was  unquestionably  a  breach 
of  neutral  duties.  But  such,  however,  argued  Yergennes,  was  not  the 
case  with  a  bonus  given  by  the  government  to  a  mercantile  house  to 
enable  it  to  furnish  munitions  of  war  to  a  belligerent.  France,  it  is 
well  known,  was  in  the  habit  of  giving  subsidies  or  bounties  to  indus- 
tries in  which  she  felt  on  national  grounds  an  interest — to  certain  classes 
of  shipping,  to  fishing  vessels,  to  manufactories  in  their  early  stages, 
to  mining.  lie  may  now  say  this  was  a  vicious  system,  but  it  was  the 
system  of  those  times,  and  it  was  consistent  with  this  system  that  sub- 

"*  Supra,  $  58.  tSee  ou  this  question,  avjyra,  §^  Gl,  G4,  69. 

454 


CHAP.  VIIL]  attitude    OF    SPAIN.  [§  102. 

sidies  or  bounties  sliould  be  given  to  a  mercantile  bouse  wbos-e  object 
was  to  put  France  at  tbe  liead  of  all  nations  in  the  manufacture  and 
sale  to  belligerents  or  expectant  belligerents  of  munitions  of  war.  If 
tbis  was  tlie  object  of  tbe  contributions  by  France  to  Ilortalez  &  Co.  it 
might  plausibly  be  argued  to  be  consistent  with  neutral  duties.  * 

But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  aid  given  by  the  French  Government  to 
Beaumarchais  was  given  to  him  not  as  a  business  man  engaged  in  the 
general  work  of  buying  and  exporting  munitions  of  war,  but  as  an  agent 
emi)loyed  in  the  transniission  of  supplies  to  insurgents  against  Britain 
with  whom  France  was  then  at  peace;  and  this  was  a  breach  of  neu- 
trality on  the  part  of  France. 

The  attitude  of  the  French  Government  towards  the  United  States  prior  to  1778,  so 
fur  as  concerns  its  evasion  of  neutrality,  was  the  subject  of  three  intercstin<5  and  im- 
portant pamphlets:  The  French  Expose  des  motifs  de  la  conduite  du  Roi  de  Franco 
relativement  a  I'Angleterre,  1779;  the  Mdmoire  justificatif,  in  reply,  attributed  to 
Gibbon,  and  published  by  the  British  ministry  ;  and  the  French  rejoinder,  Observa. 
tions  de  la  cour  de  Versailles  sur  le  Memoire  justiiicatif  do  la  conr  de  Londrcs. 

When  the  question  of  supplies  came  up  before  the  French  cabinet  in  1776-77,  ''me- 
moirs were  written  by  the  respective  ministers,  read  in  council,  and  examined  in  de- 
tail. The  great  talents  and  learning  of  the  eminent  jurist  Pfeffei,  and  the  still  more 
eminent  publicist  Favier,  were  called  into  action  on  this  occasion,  and  the  ])apers  they 
produced  unquestionably  had  much  weight  in  giving  a  more  decided  and  uniform 
tone  to  the  sentiments  of  the  cabinet.  Thoy  were  on  the  side  of  Vergennes.  The 
argument  of  Pfelfel  was  a  masterly  display  of  ability,  knowledge,  and  reasoning. 
He  supported  his  positions  on  the  ground  of  equity,  legal  precedents,  historical  acts, 
andthelawsof  nations,  and  drew  from  the  whole  the  general  inference  that  itis.lawful 
and  right  for  France  to  espouse  the  cause  of  the  Colonies  in  opposition  to  the  authority 
and  the  arms  of  Great  Britain."    (30  North  American  Review,  462,  by  Sparks.) 

The  supplies  thus  granted,  therefore,  could  only  be  sustained  on  the 
ground  that  France  in  giving  them  was  ready  to  take  the  risk  of  war, 
a  good  cause  of  which  they  thus  aftbrded  to  Britain.  And  it  must  be 
remembered  that  English  history  affords  instances  of  similar  aid  given 
to  belligerent  insurgents  whose  independence  has  not  been  recognized 
by  their  parent  state. 

These  instances  are  thus  narrated  by  Phillimore: 

The  formal  recognition  of  the  South  American  republics  took  place  in  1825,  under 
the  negotiation  of  a  treaty  of  commerce,  while  they  were  yet  unacknowledged  by  the 
mother  country.  The  formal  recognition  of  Greece  as  an  absolutely  independent 
power  may  be  said  not  to  have  definitely  taken  place  till  Maj^  1832.  But  on  July  G, 
1827,  Great  Britain  and  Russia  interposed,  in  order  to  guaranty  a  quasi  independence 
to  Greece,  and  covenanted  by  a  secret  and  additional  article  to  send  consular  agents 
and  enter  into  commercial  relations  within  a  month  from  the  date  of  the  treaty, 
whether  the  Porte  consented  to  or  refused  its  conditions.  And  as  an  incident 
to  the  ''material  aid"  furnished  by  England  to  Greece  the  battle  of  Navarino  was 
fought,  by  which  the  Turkish  lleet  was  destroyed  by  English  and  French  cruisers, 
England  being  at  the  time  at  peace  tvith  Turkey.  Even  while  Francis  the  Second, 
king  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  was  endeavoring  to  maintain  his  authority  at  Gaeta,  Eng- 
land recognized  the  annexation  of  Naples  to  the  Kingdom  of  Italy,  having  pre- 
viously expressed,  through  Lord  John  Russell,  their  foreign  secretary,  decided  sympa- 
thy with  the  insurgents.     (2  Phill.  Int.  Law,  31  jf.) 

*  See  supra,  ^  .^)5. 

455 


CHAPTER  IX. 

DIFFICULTIES  OF  liEVOLUTIONAEV  DIPLOMACY. 

From  domestic  organization.         §  103.  The  domestic  diplomatic  organs  of  Con- 
gress during  the  revolutionary  war  were  as  fol- 
lows, taking  them  in  order  of  time  : 

(1)  Committee  of  secret  correspondence^  consisting  of  Harrison,  Frank- 
lin, Johnson,  Dickinson,  and  Jay. 

(2)  Committee  of  foreign  affairs^  which  in  April,  1777,  succeeded  the 
committee  of  secret  correspondence  in  all  matters  relative  to  our  inter- 
ests abroad.  It  was  a  part  of  the  policy  of  Samuel  Adams,  of  Eichard 
H.  Lee,  and  of  those  who  agreed  with  them  in  opposition  to  distinct  ex- 
ecutive departments,  that  Congress  should  conduct  the  entire  executive 
business  of  the  Government  through  committees  appointed  from  time 
to  time  by  itself  and  acting  under  its  direct  instructions.*  But  peculiar 
difficulties  attended  this  plan  when  applied  to  foreign  affairs.  The 
committee  of  foreign  affairs  was  changed  from  time  to  time  not  only  by 
action  of  Congress,  but  by  the  shifting  to  and  fro  of  its  members  as  con- 
venience required  or  intrigue  managed ;  and  in  this  way,  in  consequence 
of  divisions  of  opinions  which  will  be  hereafter  noticed,  the  tone  of  the 
letters  sent  abroad  followed  the  varying  opinions  of  those  who  were  on 
the  committee  at  the  time.  Aside  from  this,  a  fluctuatiag  committee, 
without  permanent  chairman  or  secretary,  could  have  no  fixed  line  of 
X^ublic  polic3\  This  policy  Congress  undertook  to  determine  from  time 
to  time  by  way  of  resolutions,  hearing  communications  from  foreign 
ministers  and  its  own  envoys  read  to  it,  and  then  resolving  what  should 
be  its  reply,  or,  when  a  policy  had  to  be  initiated,  resolving  what  that 
policy  should  be.  But  Congress  was  not  always  in  session  ;  and  even 
when  in  session  it  had  not  time  specifically  to  direct  a  correspondence 
so  voluminous  and  intricate  as  that  to  which  our  foreign  affairs  gave 
rise.  Hence  the  great  body  of  this  correspondence  fell  on  the  commit- 
tee of  foreign  affairs,  and  that  committee,  for  the  reasons  above  given, 
was  not  a  suitable  or  adequate  agency  for  the  performance  of  such  a 
work.  The  failure  of  the  system  is  thus  stated  by  Loveil,  one  of  the 
most  strenuous  supporters  of  the  absorption  of  executive  functions  in 
legislature,  in  a  letter  dated  August  0, 1779,  (see  infra,  under  that  date) 
to  Arthur  Lee  :  ''  There  is  really  no  such  thing  as  a  committee  of  foreign 
affairs  existing — no  secretary  or  clerk  further  than  I  persevere  to  be 
one  and  the  other.  Tlie  books  and  papers  of  tliat  extinguished  body 
lay  yet  on  the  table  of  Congress,  or  rather  are  locked  up  in  the  secreta- 

"  See  infrn,  $  209. 
456 


CHAP.  IX.]  REVOLUTIONARY    DIPLOMACY.  [§  103. 

ry's  private  box.  There  was  a  motion,  as  I  liave  before  told  yon,  to  choose 
a  we?r  committee;  the  house  wouhl  not  so  insult  me.  An  indifference 
[sic)  then  took  j^Uice  as  to  iillinf;^  the  old  one,  upon  presumption,  I  sup- 
pose, that  a  little  leaven  would  leav^en  the  whole  lump.  It  would  be 
impossible  that  you  should  have  enemies  in  a  committee  where  was  one 
so  to  arrange  vouchers  of  your  industry,  capacity,  and  honor  as  it  is 
thought  I  am  able  to  do."* 

(3)  President  of  Conpress,  who,  when  there  was  no  committee  appointed 
for  the  purpose  and  no  secretary  for  foreign  affairs,  undertook,  under 
the  direction  of  Congress,  its  diplomatic  correspondence. 

(4)  Secretarij  for  foreign  affairs.  It  was  determined  early  in  1781 
to  establish  a  department  of  foreign  affairs,  but  it  was  not  until  Octo- 
ber, 1781,  that  Kobert  R.  Livingston,  who  had  been  elected  to  the  office, 
was  able  to  enter  on  its  duties,  t  His  practice  as  secretary  was  to  send 
out  no  papers  of  importance  without  tirst  submitting  them  to  Congress, 
and  also  to  submit  to  Congress  all  dispatches  and  communications  from 
abroad  with  his  drafts  of  replies.  Singularly  able  and  accomplished  as 
Livingston  was,  he  never  was  intrusted  with  those  initiative  diplomatic 
powers  which  in  England  and  now  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  are  confided  to  the  department  having  charge  of  foreign  affairs. 
Congress  continued  to  pass  resolutions  directing  the  policy  foreign 
ministera  were  to  pursue,  though  in  one  critical  case,  that  of  the  in- 
structions to  thepeace  commissioners  to  act  in  concert  with  France,  these 
instructions  were  disobeyed.  Congress  also  held  frequent  interviews 
with  the  minister  of  France,  in  which  there  was  what  was  called  a  free 
interchange  of  thought,  ending  in  expressions  by  which  the  Confedera- 
tion was  more  or  less  committed.  The  speeches  and  contemporaneous 
letters  of  members  of  Congress,  therefore,  are  among  the  best  exposi- 
tions of  the  action  of  Congress,  and  are  given  as  such,  when  attainable, 
in  the  following  pages. |  But  as  Congress  sat  in  secret,  with  its  mem- 
bers pledged  to  secrecy,  the  information  we  can  obtain  from  this  source 
is  limited  to  what  may  be  gathered  from  incidental  references  in  corre- 
spondence and  from  the  fragmentary^  notes  of  debates  taken  during  the 
closing  years  of  the  war  by  Madisoii  and  Thomson. 

The  following  proceedings  give  information  as  to  the  organization  of 
the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs : 

lieport  on  regulations  in  the  office  of  foreign  affairs,  December  15,  1784. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  ''regulations  in  the  ofificc  of  foreign  aflfairs" 
humbly  report: 

That  a  resolution  passed  the  22d  P^ebruary,  '82,  empowered  the  secretary  for  for 

*  See  infra,  to  same  effect,  Lovell  to  Lee,  June  3,  1779,  and  see,  as  to  committee  gov- 
ernment, infra,  ^  209. 

t  See  infra  ^  180,.^;  index,  title  Livingston. 

t  The  immense  amount  of  labor  thrown  on  Livingston  as  secretary  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  he  had  but  two  under  secretaries,  and  that  live  copies  were  made  of  all  the 
papers  that  went  out.     (Livingston  to  Congress,  Jan.  25,  Feb.  23,  1782.) 

457 


§  103.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP,  IX. 

eign  affairs  to  appoint  an  under  secretary  and  one  or  more  clerks,  that  in  the  opinion 
of  your  committee  this  power  implies  a  right  to  remove  them,  or  either  of  them,  at 
his  discretion. 

That  your  committee  conceive  this  right  to  appoint  and  remove  the  under  secre- 
taries and  clerks  that  he  may  find  it  necessary  to  employ  has  not  been  revoked  by 
any  subsequent  act  of  Congress,  and  that  it  was  in  no  wise  affected  by  the  resolution 
of  the  3d  February  last  for  the  appointment  of  an  under  secretary  to  take  charge  of 
the  papers  of  the  department  until  the  further  orders  of  Congress. 

That  your  committee  are  further  of  the  opinion  that  a  reasonable  allowance  should 
be  made  to  the  gentleman  who  may  preside  over  this  important  department  as  a  com- 
pensation for  his  services  beyond  what  his  dignified  station  may  require  him  to  ex- 
pend. That  Congress,  in  distinguishing  between  the  sums  given  as  a  reward  for  his 
services  and  those  intended  for  the  support  of  the  office,  will  free  him  from  embar- 
rassments which  he  can  not  but  feel  when  he  is  at  a  loss  to  determine  whether  his 
own  sentiments  on  this  head  conform  to  those  of  Congress. 

Your  committee  therefore  submit  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved  1,  That  the  resolution  of  the  3d  February,  1784,  for  the  appointment  of 
an  under  secretary  in  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  take  charge  of  the  papers, 
and  the  appointment  in  consequence  thereof,  continue  in  force  no  longer  than  until  a 
secretary  to  the  United  States  for  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  take  the  oaths 
and  enter  upon  the  execution  of  his  office. 

Resolved  2,  That  one  thousand  dollars  a  year  be  paid  to  the  secretary  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  as  a  compensation  for  his  services  in  that 
department  beyond  the  salary  of  400  dollars  settled  on  him  by  the  resolution  of  the  22d 
February,  1782,  which  Congress  conceives  it  may  be  necessary  for  him  to  expend  in 
support  and  maintenance  of  his  office. 


Sept.  7,  1785. 

Resolved,  That  whenever  it  shall  appear  to  the  secretary  of  the  United  States  of 
America  for  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  that  their  safety  or  interest  require  the 
inspection  of  any  letters  in  any  of  the  post-offices,  he  be  authorized  and  empowered 
to  inspect  the  said  letters.  Excepting  from  the  operation  of  this  resolution,  which 
is  to  continue  for  the  term  of  twelve  months,  all  letters  franked  by  or  addressed  to 
members  of  Congress. 


August  14,  1788. 

The  committee  appointed  to  inquire  ("ully  into  the  proceedings  of  the  Department 
of  Foreign  Affairs  report : 

That  two  rooms  are  occupied  by  this  department,  one  of  which  the  secretary  re- 
serves for  himself  and  the  reception  of  such  persons  as  may  have  business  with  him, 
and  the  other  for  his  deputy  and  clerks. 

That  the  records  and  papers  belonging  to  the  department  are  kept  in  a  proper 
manner,  and  so  arranged  as  that  recourse  may  be  had  to  any  of  them  without  delay 
or  difficulty. 

That  they  find  his  method  of  doing  business  is  as  follows:  The  daily  transactions 
are  entered  in  a  minute-book  as  they  occur,  and  from  thence  are  neatly  copied  into  a 
journal  at  seasons  of  leisure.  This  journal  contains  a  note  of  the  dates,  receipt,  and 
contents  of  all  letters  received  and  written  by  him,  with  references  to  the  books  in 
which  they  are  recorded,  of  all  matters  referred  to  him,  .and  the  time  when,  and  of 
his  reports  thereupon,  and  in  general  of  all  the  transactions  in  the  department.  It 
is  very  minute,  and  at  present  occupies  two  folio  volumes. 

His  official  letters  to  the  ministers  and  servants  of  Congress  and  others  abroad 
are  recorded  in  a  l»ook  entitled  Book  of  foreign  letters,  and  such  parts  as  required 
secrecy  are  in  cyphers. 

458 


CHAP.  IX.]  REVOLUTIONARY    DIPLOMACY.  [§  103. 

His  officical  correspondence  with  foiei<^ii  nunisters  here  and  with  the  ofHcers  of 
Congress  and  others  m  the  United  States,  including  the  hitters  received  and  written 
by  him,  are  rocordcul  at  hxrgo  in  a  book  entitled  American  letter  book.  They  already 
till  three  folio  volumes. 

His  reports  to  Congress  are  recorded  in  a  book  entitled  Book  of  reports,  the  third 
volume  of  which  is  now  iu  hand.  The  papers  on  which  the  reports  are  made  are 
subjoined  to  the  report,  unless  in  cases  when,  according  to  the  ordinary  course  of  the 
office,  they  are  recorded  in  other  books. 

His  correspondence  and  the  proccediuixs  with  the  Encargado  de  Negocios  of 
Spain  are  recorded  iu  a  book  kept  for  that  purpose. 

The  passports  for  vessels  issued  by  the  secretary  nnder  the  act  of  Congress  of 
l*2th  February,  1788.  together  with  the  evidence  accompanying  the  several  applica- 
tions, are  recorded  in  a  book  kept  for  that  purpose. 

The  letters  of  credence  and  commissions  of  foreign  ministers,  chargd  des  affaires, 
and  consuls  to  the  United  States  are  recorded  iu  a  book  entitled  Book  of  foreign 
commissions. 

There  is  also  a  book  kept  and  regularly  sent  to  the  secretary  of  Congress  to  re- 
ceive such  acts  of  Congress  as  respect  the  department. 

A  book  of  accounts  is  kept,  in  which  are  entered  the  contingent  expenses  of  the 
office. 

The  business  of  the  office  is  done  by  his  deputy  and  two  clerks,  and  whatever 
time  can  be  spared  from  the  ordinary  and  daily  business  is  employed  in  recording  the 
letters  received  from  the  American  ministers  abroad.  In  this  work  considerable 
progress  has  been  made.  We  find  already  recorded  one  volume,  containing  the  let- 
ters of  Mr.  Dana  during  his  mission  to  Russia,  commencing  18th  February,  1780,  and 
ending  I7th  December,  1783;  of  Mr.  H.  Laurens,  commencing  24th  January,  1780,  and 
ending  .30th  April,  1784;  and  of  Mr,  John  Laurens  during  his  special  mission  to  Ver- 
sailles, commencing  3d  Januar^^,  1781,  and  ending  Gth  September  following.  Five 
volumes,  containing  the  letters  from  Mr.  Adams,  commencing  23d  December,  1777,  and 
brought  up  to  10th  April,  1787;  the  sixth  volume  is  now.in  hand.  Two  volumes,  con- 
taining the  letters  from  Mr.  Jay,  commencing  the  20th  December,  1779,  aud  ending 
25th  July,  1784.  The  letters  from  Mr.  Deane,  commencing  the  17th  September,  177G, 
and  ending  17  March,  1782,  are  recorded,  and  those  from  Mr.  Arthur  Lee,  commencing 
13th  February,  1776,  aud  brought  up  to  1.5th  February,  1778,  are  uow  in  hand. 

Those  from  Dr.  Franklin,  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  first  joint  commissiouers,  the  joint 
commissioners  for  negotiating  a  treaty  of  peace,  and  those  for  negotiating  treaties  of 
commerce,  Mr.  William  Lee,  Mr.  Dumas,  and  others,  are  numerous,  aud  are  yet  to  be 
recorded. 

The  letter-book  of  the  late  commiltee  for  foreign  affairs,  composed  of  sheets 
stitched  together  aud  much  torn,  has  been  fairly  copied  in  a  bound  book  aud 
indexed. 

The  books  used  for  the  records  are  of  demy  paper,  and  each  volume  contains  from 
5  to  6  quires  of  paper,  being  all  of  a  size,  except  the  two  volumes  of  the  secretary's 
reports,  which  are  somewhat  less. 

There  is  an  index  to  the  paper  cases  and  to  the  boxes  in  each  case  and  to  the  pa- 
lmers iu  each  box.  In  these  cases  aud  boxes  are  filed  the  original  letters  and  papers 
belonging  to  the  office. 

The  office  is  coustantly  open  from  9  iu  the  morning  to  6  o'clock  in  the  evening, 
and  either  his  deputy  or  one  of  the  clerks  remains  in  the  office  while  the  others  are 
absent  to  dinner. 

By  inspection  of  the  book  of  foreign  letters  your  committee  find  that  several 
timely  efforts  have  been  made  to  furnish  Mr.  riarmichael  with  a  cypher,  the  last  of 
which  they  have  reason  to  hope  is  successful.  Aud  upon  the  whole  they  find  neatness, 
method,  aud  perspicuity  throughout  the  department. 

459 


§  104.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP    IX. 

From  congressional  vaciiia-       §  104.  The  Vacillating  foreigii  policy  of  Congress 

added  not  a  little  to  the  difficulties  of  its  legations 
abroad.  It  is  elsewhere  observed  that  Congress  was  divided  in  diplo- 
matic, as  well  as  in  military  and  financial,  matters  into  two  distinct 
schools,  the  iloctrinaire  enthusiasts,  such  as  Samuel  and  John  Adams  and 
Richard  H.  Lee,  wiio  believed  that  ideas,  if  pressed  with  untutored  force, 
would  triumph  over  all  artificial  barriers,  and  the  school  which  held  that 
in  diplomacy,  as  well  as  in  war  and  finance,  all  the  rightful  expedients 
which  experience  i)roved  to  be  efficient  should  be  made  use  of.  By 
the  first  school  it  was  insisted,  as  we  will  see,  that  envoys  should  be 
sent  to  demand  succor  from  every  European  country,  and  it  was  pre- 
dicted that  if  they  spoke  with  sufficient  resoluteness  succor  would  be 
given.  By  the  second,  following  in  this  respect  the  conclusions  reached 
by  modern  diplomacy,  it  was  held  that  no  envoy  should  be  sent  to  a 
court  which  had  not  i)reviously  intimated  that  such  an  envoy  would  be 
received,  and  it  was  predicted  that  envoys  sent  without  this  previous 
courtesy  would  meet  with  humiliating  rebuffs. 

It  was  unfortunate  for  us  that  a  majority  of  Congress,  intiuenced  not 
only  by  the  zealous  appeals  of  the  advocates  of  the  first  view,  but  by 
the  letters  of  Arthur  and  William  Lee,  stating  that  they  were  informed 
by  reliable  authority  that  Spain,  Holland,  Prussia,  Russia,  Germany, 
Tuscany,  and  Sweden  were  anxious  to  receive  American  ministers,  de- 
termined that  such  ministers  should  be  sent.  Their  adventures,  when 
attempting  these  missions,  have  been  already  incidentally  noticed 
and  will  be  hereafter  more  fully  specified.  It  is  enough  here  to  say 
that  the  advocates  of  the  policy  which  sent  them  looked  upon  Franklin, 
whom  they  regarded  as  the  chief  antagonist  of  that  policy,  with  pecul- 
iar dislike.  According  to  Richard  H.  Lee  he  was  a  "  wicked  old  man,", 
who  would  hesitate  at  no  new  crimes  by  which  his  old  crimes  could  be 
covered  up;  and  he  was  regarded  by  Samuel  and  John  Adams  if  not 
indeed  as  actually  wicked,  as  an  indolent  philosopher,  who,  from  his  love 
of  aimless  intrigue  and  his  dislike  to  bold  push,  Avonld  deprive  his 
country  of  advantages  which  a  courageous  front  would  procure.* 

The  fluctuating  policy  of  Congress  as  to  foreign  affairs  is  illustrated 
by  the  divisions  in  the  committee  to  whom  these  aflairs  were  intrusted 
and  the  changes  in  the  tone  of  our  diplomatic  correspondence  as  one  or 
the  other  of  these  parties  was  in  its  turn  in  the  ascendant.  When  the 
committee  was  first  constituted  it  contained,  under  the  title  of  the 
"  secret  committee,"  the  names  of  Franklin,  Jay,  Harrison,  and  Morris ; 
to  the  first  two  of  whom  Arthur  Lee  objected  as  unfriendly  to  himself, 
while  Harrison  and  Morris  were  known  to  be  devoted  friends  of  both 
Washington  and  Franklin.  But  Franklin  and  Jay  went  abroad,  Morris 
after  a  while  transferred  his  attention  to  the  finance  department,  and  fre- 
quently we  find  important  instructions  signed  only  by  Richard  H.  Lee 
and  Lovell,  Lovell  being  a  devoted  friend  of  the  Lees  and  of  Samuel 

*  See  infra,  §  126, 149. 
460 


CHAP.  IX.]  REVOLUTIONARY    DIPLOMACY.  [§  105. 

Adams.  It  was  duriug  periods  when  this  committee  was  thus  controlled 
that  instructions  issued  withdrawing,  as  far  as  couhl  be  decently  done, 
the  control  of  our  foreian  relations  abroad  from  Franklin,  and  placing 
it  in  the  hands  of  those  singular  functionaries,  our  envoys  without  res- 
idences, whose  very  existence  was  ignored  by  the  courts  to  which  they 
were  commissioned.  It  is  true  that  when  Morris,  or  Witherspoon,  or 
Harrison,  was  in  the  ascendant  on  the  connnittee,  Franklin  was  treated 
as  from  the  nature  of  things  at  the  head  of  our  diplomatic  system  ;  and 
it  is  true,  also,  that  during  the  masterly  administration  of  Livingston 
this  view  was  taken,  and  Congress  was  advised  to  recall  the  envoys,  who 
were  not  and  would  not  be  received  as  such  in  the  courts  to  which 
they  were  sent.  Still  the  contradictory  character  of  the  instructions 
received  by  our  foreign  ministers  during  the  Kevolution  forced  them  at 
least  in  some  cases  to  select  their  own  line  of  action. 

Our  foreign  relations,  then,  labored,  in  the  first  place,  under  the  diffi- 
culty arising  from  the  alternations  of  ascendancy  between  the  school 
which  on  the  one  side  dt sired  to  establish  a  diplomatic  system  as 
known  by  the  law  of  nations,  and  which  advocated  a  central  diplomatic 
executive,  selecting  Franklin  as  the  proper  foreign  representative  of 
this  executive,  and  the  school  on  the  other  side  which  sought  to  do 
away  with  such  executive,  sending  out  a  series  of  delegated  representa- 
tives, keeping  each  under  congressional  control,  under  immediate  con- 
gressional impulse.  But  there  were  also,  in  the  second  place,  radical 
changes  of  congressional  policy  on  matters  of  supreme  importance,  as 
to  which  Congress,  from  the  impossibility  of  its  obtaining  prompt  in- 
formation, was  not  competent  to  act.  Prominent  among  these  were 
the  questions  relative  to  the  Mississippi  valley  and  to  the  lisheries, 
the  action  of  Congress  as  to  which  will  be  detailed  in  the  following 
pages.* 

From  diflicuity  of  ocean         §  105.  Evcu  uudcr  the  bcst  circumstanccs  letters 

correspondeuce,  and  its  -^ 

iuterceptiug  and  falsi-     then  avcragcd  two  mouths  in  their  passage  from 

tcation.  ^  L  a 

Philadelphia  to  Paris.  When,  however,  the  British 
blockade  became  more  thorough,  onl}-  a  fraction,  sometimes  but  small, 
of  the  letters  sent  reached  their  destination. 

"When  Congress  had  as  many  as  twelve  paid  agents  on  that  continent  (Europe), 
all  of  whom  wrote  hy  every  opportunity,  and  some  of  whom  were  authorized  to  make 
opportunities,  and  actually  did  attempt  to  start  a  packet  once  a  month,  there  was 
once  a  period  of  eleven  months  during  which  Congress  had  not  a  line  from  one  of 
them."     (2  Parton's  Franklin,  151.) 

*  See  index,  titles  Mississippi,  Fisheries,  Franklin,  Jay,  Congress.  As  to  determi- 
nation of  Congress,  see  supra  §  8.  Tlie  great  i)overty  of  the  country  was  one  of  the 
causes  which  limited  attendance  of  members  whose  income  was  cut  oji'  by  the  war. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  provided  that  no  delegate  to  Congress  should  hold  a 
seat  more  than  three  years  out  of  six.  The  execution  of  this  provision,  however, 
was  considered  optional  in  the  States,  and  Massachusetts,  in  particular,  returned 
Samuel  Adams  and  Lovell,  regardless  of  this  restriction,  during  almost  the  entire  war. 

461 


§  105.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

So  great  was  the  difficulty  in  correspoudenco  that  four  copies  were 
made  of  every  official  documeDt  set  forth,  and  on  each  was  the  warning 
written  "  to  be  sunk  in  case  of  danger  from  enemy." 

Even  when  letters  from  America  reached  a  European  post-office  they 
were  oi^ened,  and  if  it  were  judged  politic,  detained.  Hence  it  was 
that  it  was  thought  necessary  to  intrust  very  important  papers  to  spe- 
cial agents.  * 

''These  iiuportaut  dispatches  (the  lirst  issued  by  the  comiuittee  of  secret  corre- 
spondence) were  not  intrusted  to  any  of  the  ordinary  modes  of  conveyance.  A  special 
messenf^er  was  emxdoycd,  Mr.  Thomas  Story,  who  was  ordered  to  visit  London,  Hol- 
land, and  Paris,  deliver  to  Mr.  Leo  and  Mr.  Dumas  their  letters,  and  receive  their 
replies,  forward  the  Spanish  dispatch,  confer  with  certain  friends  of  Dr.  Franklin  in 
Paris,  and  return  to  America  with  all  speed.  Soon  after  the  departure  of  Mr.  Story 
a  M.  Penet  left  Philadelphia  for  France,  carrying  with  him  from  the  committee  a 
large  contract  for  supplying  arms,  ammuuitiou,  and  clothing  for  the  American  army. 
M.  Penet  was  a  merchant  of  Nantes,  in  France,  a  man  zealous  to  serve  the  Colonies, 
but  not  of  great  capital  or  great  connections.  To  him  also  Dr.  Franklin  intrusted 
letters  to  his  friends  in  France,  particularly  to  Dr.  Dubourg,  of  Paris,  the  translator 
of  his  works,  his  fond  and  enthusiastic  disciple."     (2  Parton's  Franklin,  113.) 

Of  the  French  dispatches  from  Philadelphia  to  Paris  sometimes  as  many  as  seven 
were  sent  by  distinct  conveyances,  never  less  than  four.  To  the  ciphers  in  these  dis- 
patches the  British  Government  had  at  least  a  partial  clew. 

As  will  be  hereafter  seen,  t  an  effort  was  made  by  Deane,  and  with 
comparative  success,  to  evade  scrutiny  by  writing  his  diplomatic  dis- 
patches between  the  lines  of  illusory  business  notes  in  invisible  ink, 
which  Jay,  then  on  the  home  committee  of  correspondence,  was  enabled 
to  bring  out  by  an  acid  in  his  possession. 

When  captured,  letters  which  were  secured  by  the  enemy  were  as  a 
matter  of  course  reported  at  once  to  the  foreign  office  at  London,  so  that, 
as  more  than  half  of  our  correspondence  met  this  destiny,  the  enemy 
was  informed  of  the  plans  of  Congress  at  least  as  freely  as  were  the 
ministers  of  Congress  abroad.  It  is  true  that  some  of  these  letters  were 
in  cipher.  But  the  keys  to  most  of  our  ciphers  seem  to  have  been  i)os- 
sessed  by  the  British  foreign  office,  and  even  when  this  was  not  the 
case,  an  expert  might  at  least  make  such  a  guess  at  a  cipher  as  to  in- 
vest it  with  dangerous  effects.  How  artfully  and  mischievously  this 
could  be  done  is  illustrated  in  the  instance  of  the  famous  Marbois  letter, 
elsewhere  discussed  at  large,  f  in  which  an  alleged  letter  from  Marbois 
to  yergennes§  was  ^'deciphered"  in  such  a  way  by  the  British  author- 
ities in  whose  hands  it  fell  as  to  make  out  of  it  a  paper  which,  though 

*  Doniol  states  that  of  four  or  five  copies  of  dispatches  sent  by  Gerard  to  Vergennes 
often  only  one  reached  Versailles.     (3  Doniol,  295.) 

t  Infra,  $  155  ;  1  Jay's  Life,  05. 

X  Supra,  §  85 ;  infra,  Marbois  to  Vergennes,  Mar.  13,  1782,  with  note  thereto. 

§  See  this  letter  infra,  under  date  of  Mar.  13,  1782,  with  notes  thereto.  The  steal- 
ing at  Berlin  of  Arthur  Lee's  papers  by  the  British  minister  is  another  illustration  of 
the  same  unscrupulousness.  See  infra,  Arthur  Lee  to  commissioners,  June  28,  1777, 
See  introduction,  ^^S^  144,  193,  and  under  title  of  Forgery. 

463 


CHAP.  IX  ]  REVOLUTIONARY    DIPLOMACY.  [§10^- 

subsequently  disavowed,  as  translated,  by  Marbois,  yet  at  the  time  pro- 
duced in  the  n'lind  of  Jay,  to  whom  it  was  hauded  by  Fitzherbert,  a 
British  envoy,  under  pledge  of  secrecy,  the  impression  that  France  was 
untrue  to  her  pledges  of  lidelity  to  the  United  States.  Tiie  same  may 
be  said  of  certain  "decii)hered"  letters  of  Washington  claimed  to  have 
been  intercepted  by  the  British  and  published  as  originals.  Much  in 
them  was  admitted  by  Washington  to  be  true.  Yet  by  a  few  changes 
they  were  given  a  meaning  not  only  essentially  false,  but  which,  had 
they  been  genuine  as  published,  would  have  seriously  injured  the  revo- 
lutionary cause. 

But  supposing  letters  from  America  reached  France  or  Spain,  or  The 
Netherlands,  or  Russia,  as  the  case  might  be,  their  destiny  was  still 
uncertain.  In  France  the^^  were  in  friendly  hands,  so  far  as  concerned 
the  post;  and  if  they  were  opened  their  contents  were  not  used  so  as 
to  prejudice  the  common  cause.  But  it  was  otherwise  with  Spain.  No 
letters  reached  Jay  by  Spanish  post,  so  he  tells  us,  which  did  not  bear 
marks  of  having  been  opened;  and  those  he  received  he  supposed  to 
form  but  a  fraction  of  those  kept  back. 

From  undue  multiplication  of        §  106.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  pol- 

icy  of  sending  ministers  to  European  courts 
where  such  ministers  were  not  received  worked  injuriously  to  the  United 
States  from  tlie  mere  fact  of  their  non-reception.  Another  difficulty 
arose  from  the  circumstance  that  several  of  these  ministers  took  up 
their  residence  in  Paris,  and,  without  specific  authority,  considered  it 
their  duty  to  take  part  in  the  counsels  of  the  American  legation.  Thus 
Ralph  Izard,  commissioned  to  Tuscany,  never  went  there,  but  remained 
in  Paris,  claiming  a  right  to  be  informed  of  all  the  details  of  the  nego- 
tiations with  France,  and  occupying  no  small  share  of  the  time  and 
care  of  Franklin  with  discussions  of  this  claim,  which  Franklin  could 
not  accede  to,  but  on  which  Izard  continued  to  insist.*  When  the 
triple  legation  of  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Arthur  Lee  (and  afterwards 
Franklin,  Arthur  Lee,  and  Adams),  was  commissioned,  it  was  under- 
stood that  its  members  were  to  divide,  so  that  one  (Franklin)  should 
remain  in  Paris,  while  the  others  should  take  charge  of  the  missions  to 
other  capitals.  But  Arthur  Lee,  when  he  found  that  he  could  not  be 
received  in  Madrid,  or  in  Vienna,  or  in  Berlin,  made  but  brief  excursions 
to  Spain,  to  Austria,  and  to  Berlin,  reporting  himself  after  each  short 
trip  i)romptly  at  Paris,  there  to  differ  from  Franklin  not  only  as  to  im- 
portant business  details,  but  as  to  the  whole  policy  of  the  mission. 
When  Adams  was  in  Paris,  during  their  joint  mission,  he  concurred 
with  Arthur  Lee  in  what  turned  out  to  be  the  disastrous  measure  of 
removing  Williams  as  commercial  agent  and  putting  in  his  place  William 
Lee,  with  a  nephew  of  William  and  Arthur  Lee  as  clerk  ;t  while  on  the 


Spp  index,  titles  Franklin,  Izard,  fSee  infra,  $^  153,  176,  186, 

463 


§§  107,  108.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

whole  question  of  seuding  legations  to  foreign  courts  which  had  not 
consented  to  receive  them,  and  in  the  still  more  important  question  of 
Che  attitude  to  be  assumed  by  the  commissioners  to  the  French  court, 
Adams  agreed  with  Lee.  To  these  dilferences  are  to  be  ascribed  the 
''dissensions"  between  the  ministers  at  Paris  in  1778-'71),  which  will  be 
hereafter  discussed.*  It  is  due  to  Adams  to  say  that  he  saw  the  inherent 
difilculties  of  permanent  missions  conducted  by  three  joint  commission- 
ers; tliat  he  recommended  that  there  should  be  but  one  permanent 
minister  to  France;  and  that  he  recognized  Franklin's  great  influence 
with  the  French  ministry  as  a  strong  reason  for  his  retention  though 
without  colleagues. 

But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  down  to  the  period  when  Franklin 
became  sole  minister,  the  American  cause  in  Europe  was  much  embar- 
rassed by  the  fact  that  he  had  colleagues  associated  with  him.  Had  it 
not  been  for  Deane  the  complications  with  the  numerous  officers  commis- 
sioned by  him  would  not  have  arisen,  nor  would  the  transactions  with 
Beaumarchais  have  been  enveloped  in  a  mist  which  it  is  even  now  impos- 
sible fully  to  dissolve.  Had  it  not  been  for  Adams  and  Arthur  Lee  our 
relations  with  France  would  not  have  been  imperiled,  nor  would  the 
missions  to  Berlin,  Vienna,  Florence,  Madrid,  and  St.  Petersburg  have 
been  attempted  until  a  reception  was  assured.  Moreover,  the  mere  pres- 
ence together  in  Paris  of  commissioners  whose  views  of  policy  so  widely 
diverged  was  calculated  by  itself  to  throw  great  discredit  on  American 
interests  in  Europe.  And  this  discredit  was  not  diminished  by  the  in- 
delicate importunity  of  the  appeals  for  recognition  and  loans  made  by 
these  envoys  to  the  states  to  which  they  were  specially  commissioned. 

Jefterson  took  the  position  that  ''the  Americans  ought  never  to  solicit 
any  privileges  from  foreign  nations,  in  order  not  to  be  obliged  to  grant 
similar  privileges  themselves ;''  and  it  was  partly  on  this  ground  that 
he  objected  to  the  sending  envoys  to  courts  to  which  they  were  not  in- 
vited.   This  De  Tocqueville  (2,  298)  calls  plain  and  just. 

From  extraneous  burdens.  ^  107.  It  was  ou  the  legation  at  Paris  that  grad- 
ually fell  the  burden  not  only  of  providing  in  a 
large  measure  funds  for  the  continuance  of  the  war,  but  of  determining 
the  innumerable  questions  that  arose  as  to  treatment  and  exchange  of 
prisoners  in  Europe;  as  to  the  superintendence  and  direction  of  the 
numerous  American  privateers  which  made  European  ports  the  base  of 
their  operations ;  as  to  the  prizes  brought  in  by  such  privateers  and 
their  distribution  ;  as  to  the  selection  and  forwarding  of  supplies.  These 
duties  are  hereafter  more  particularly  described. t 

From  defective  arrangements  §  108.    At  fifSt  the  SalarlcS  Of  the  COmmissioUCrS 

as  to  salaries  and  expenses.  •' 

were  not  fixed  at  a  specific  rate,  Congress  re- 
solving "  that  they  should  live  in  such  a  style  and  manner  as  they  might 

*  Infra,  ^  126,  149.  ]  Infra,  $  118. 

464 


CHAP.  IX.]  REVOLUTIONARY    DIPLOMACY.  [§  108. 

find  suitable  auil  necessary  to  support  the  cliguity  of  their  public  char- 
acter/^ and  that  "besides  the  actual  expenses  of  the  commissioners  a 
handsome  allowance  should  be  made  to  each  of  them  as  a  compeusatum 
for  their  Hme^  trouble,  rlslx,  and  services.''^  It  was  under  this  last  clause 
that  arose  the  question  as  to  Izard's  salary  when  unemployed  in  Paris, 
(he  being  there  when  his  commission  came  and  never  having  visited 
Tuscan}^,  to  which  he  was  accredited,)  and  also,  supposing  a  salary  to 
I'.edue  him,  whether  it  was  to  be  enlarged  so  as  to  cover  the  expenses 
of  educating  his  family.  These  points,  as  has  been  seen,  were  answered 
by  Franklin  in  the  negative  and  by  Adams  and  Lee  in  the  affirmative. 
Ill  October,  1779,  Congress,  advised  of  the  difficulties  arising  under  this 
system,  fixed  the  salary  of  a  minister  at  £2,500  sterling  ($11,111),  and 
that  of  a  secretary  of  the  legation  at  £1,000  ($1,444).  In  May,  1784,  the 
salary  of  ministers  was  placed  at  $9,000,  and  that  of  secretaries  at  $3,000. 
On  the  old  qiiantwn  meruit  standard  the  average  expenses  of  the  commis- 
sioners, taking  them  individually,  was  about  £3,000  sterling  (or  $13,333).* 
In  one  respect  the  appropriation  of  Congress  for  its  foreign  legations  was 
lavish.  Salaries  were  given  to  Izard,  though  he  never  even  visited  the 
country  to  which  he  was  accredited;  t  to  Dana,  though  when  he  got  to  St. 
Petersburg  he  was  refused  any  kind  of  recognition  ;  I  to  the  Lees,  though 
wherever  they  went  they  prejudiced  the  American  cause  by  the  indis- 
cretion and  indelicacy  with  which  they  insisted  on  a  recognition  which 
met  with  refusals  which  each  new  application  made  more  curt  and  harshj 
to  William  Lee  in  particular,  who  was  not  received  b3"  any  court  to 
which  he  presented  himself.  §  To  these  legations  secretaries  were  as- 
signed. Even  to  that  extraordinary  person  Stephen  Sayre,  who  appeared 
as  secretary  to  Arthur  Lee  at  Berlin  at  the  time  of  the  theft  of  the 
legation  papers,  a  salary  was  afterwards  voted  by  Congress  as  properly 
due.  1 1  The  way  the  salaries  of  our  legations  were  collected  added 
not  a  little  to  their  questionable  character.  No  funds,  after  the  block- 
ade stopped  the  forwarding  to  France  of  American  produce,  were 
received  from  America  to  pay  these  salaries,  and  hence  they  were  paid 
almost  exclusively  out  of  funds  raised  in  France;  and  Vergennes,  who 
was  strongly  opposed  to  the  sending  of  ministers  to  courts  who  would  not 
assent  to  their  reception,  naturally  objected  to  the  money  furnished  by 
France  being  wasted  in  what  he  considered  to  be  excursions  detrimental 
not  merely  to  the  United  States  but  to  the  allied  cause.  And  then,  in 
addition  to  this,  Franklin,  on  whom  the  whole  burden  of  the  European 
negotiations  fell,^]  was  left  practically  without  help.  His  colleagues, 
when  he  had  colleagues,  were  certainly  not  assistants.  Even  when  he 
was  sole  minister  his  only  secretary  was  his  grandson,  a  minor,  whose 
only  use  was  that  of  a  copyist  and  in  some  subsidiary  degree  of  an 
accountant.  And  in  addition  to  this  deficiency  of  assistance  in  the 
legation,  is  to  be  considered  the  want  of  funds  for  secret  service.     Of 

*  See  index,  titles  Salaries,  Expenses,     t  Infra,  $  169.      ||  Seeinfra,  $  194. 

t  Infra,  $  178.  $  Infra,  §  177.     *[  Infra,  ^  118,  119,  126. 

30  WH  465 


§  109.]  INTllODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

such  fauds  Fraukliu  was  destitute,  while  so  lavish  had  been  the  enemy's 
appropriations  in  this  line,  that  whenever  an  alleged  friend  of  the  Ameri- 
can cause,  hoveriug  about  Paris  was  found  to  be  open  to  bribes,  these 
bribes  found  him  out,  while,  as  we  learn  from  the  Stormont  papers, 
Franklin  was  himself  watched  at  every  step  by  British  spies.  It  was 
from  the  secret  fund  system  of  France  that  were  paid  such  services  of 
this  class  as  were  rendered  to  the  allies. 

From  delicacy  of  position        §  109.  The  treaty  of  alliance  of  February  6, 1778, 

to  I  ranee,  growing  out  •'  "^  ^77 

of  instriictiona  to  con-    bctwecn  France  and  the  United  States  provided 

suit  her. 

(Art.  I)  that  "if  war  should  break  out  between 
France  and  Great  Britain  during  the  continuance  of  the  present  war 
between  the  United  States  and  England,  his  majesty  and  the  said  United 
States  shall  make  it  a  common  cause,  and  aid  each  other  mutually  with 
their  good  offices,  their  counsels,  and  their  forces,  according  to  the  exi- 
gence of  conjunctures,  as  becomes  good  and  faithful  allies." 

By  the  eighth  article  it  was  provided  that  "  neither  of  the  two  parties 
shall  conclude  either  truce  or  peace  with  Great  Britain  without  the 
formal  consent  of  the  other  first  obtained;  and  they  mutually  engage 
not  to  lay  down  their  arms  until  the  independence  of  the  United  States 
shall  have  been  formally  or  tacitly  assured  by  the  treaty  or  treaties 
that  shall  terminate  the  war." 

On  June  15,  1781,  Congress,  through  Huntington,  its  president,  sent 
the  following  instructions  to  Messrs.  Adams,  Franklin,  Jay,  Laurens, 
and  Jefferson,  ministers  plenipotentiary  in  behalf  of  the  United  States 
to  negotiate  a  treaty  of  peace: 

"You  are  therefore  at  liberty  to  secure  the  interest  of  tlie  Uuitecl  States  in  such  a 
manner  as  circumstances  may  direct,  and  as  the  state  of  tbe  belligerent  and  the  dis- 
position of  the  mediatiug  powers  may  require.  For  this  imrpose  you  are  to  make  the 
most  candid  and  confidential  coinmunications  iqyon  all  suhjccts  to  tlte  ministers  of  our  gen- 
erous ally  the  king  of  France  ;  to  undertake  nothing  in  the  negotiations  for  peace  or  truce 
without  their  knoivledge  or  concurrence,  and  ultimately  to  govern  yourselves  by  their 
advice  and  opinion,  endeavoring  in  your  whole  conduct  to  render  them  sensible  how 
much  we  rely  upon  his  majesty's  influeuce  for  effectual  aid  in  everything  that  may 
be  necessary  to  the  peace,  security,  and  future  prosperity  of  the  United  States  of 
America." 

On  May  31,  1782,  Congress  resolved — 

**That  the  secretary  for  foreign  affairs  acquaint  the  minister  plenipotentiary  of 
France  that  the  signal  proof  of  inviolable  constancy  to  his  engagements  given  by  his 
most  christian  majesty  in  the  answer  to  the  attempts  of  the  British  court  to  seduce 
him  into  a  separate  peace  has  been  received  by  Congress  with  the  sentiments  with 
which  it  ought  naturally  to  inspire  faithful  and  affectionate  allies,  and  entirely  coi- 
respouds  with  the  expectations  which  the  magnanimity  and  good  faith  of  his  i)ast 
conduct  had  established.  That  Congress  embrace  with  particular  satisfaction  this 
occasion  of  renewing  to  his  most  christian  majesty  the  assurances  which  they  have 
so  often  and  so  sincerely  repeated,  of  a  recii)rocal  and  equal  resolution  to  adhere,  in 
overj^  event,  to  the  principles  of  the  alliance,  and  to  hearken  to  no  propositions  of 
peace  which  are  not  perfectly  couforuuible  thereto. 

"That  the  insidious  steps  which  the  court  of  London  is  pursuing  render  it  improb- 

^66 


CHAP.  IX.]  REVOLUTIONARY    DIPLOMACY.  [§  110. 

able  that  any  propositious  cuiifuiijiablo  to  these  principles  will  bo  made  to  the  United 
States;  but  that  in  case  such  propositions  should  be  made,  Con^jress  will  not  depart 
irom  the  measures  which  they  have  heretofore  takeu  for  preventing  delay  and  for 
conducting  the  discussions  of  them  in  confidence  and  in  concert  with  his  most  chris- 
tian majesty;  and  that  as  Congress  observe  with  the  warmest  approbation  the  pnr- 
l)0se  of  his  most  christian  majesty  to  oppose  to  the  false  appearances  of  peace  hold 
out  by  Great  Britain  those  redoubled  ell'orts  which  may  render  her  sincerely  disposed 
to  it,  so  his  majesty  may  bo  persuaded  that  tliey  are  no  less  impressed  with  the  neces- 
sity of  such  concurrent  exertions  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  as  may  frustrate 
the  views  of  the  common  enemy  in  the  new  system  which  their  policy  seems  to  have 
adopted  on  this  continent." 

On  An.i?iist  8,  1782,  ii  luotiou  was  made  to  recoiisidci'  this  vote,  but 
without  success. 

On  October  4,  178:^,  Congress  resolved  unanimously  "  that  they  will 
not  enter  into  any  discussion  of  overtures  of  pacification  but  in  confi- 
deuce  and  in  concert  with  his  most  christian  majesty,"  and,  to  adopt  tiie 
statement  of  Secretary  Livingston  to  Congress  on  March  18,  1783,  "  di- 
rected that  a  copy  of  the  above  resolution  be  sent  to  all  the  ministers 
of  the  United  States  in  Europe  and  published  to  the  world." 

That  these  were  the  views  of  Eichard  H.  Lee  down  to  the  period  of 
Arthur  Lee's  quarrel  with  France  appears  from  the  following  passage 
from  a  letter  to  Arthur  Lee  of  February  11,  1779  : 

''As  for  the  noise  made  about  its  being  said  that  the  United  States  might  make 
treaty  with  England  wath*  the  consent  of  their  Ally  if  war  was  not  declared-  I  do 
not  believe  that  anyone  Man  of  sense,  or  member  ever  said  or  thought  any  think  like 
it.  'Tis  mere  pretense.  For  myself  I  know  that  I  would  sooner  cease  to  live  than  I 
would  agree  in  any  manner  or  for  any  pretext  to  desert  our  Ally  for  whom  I  feel  in- 
finite gratitude  and  reverence.  You  know  j)erfectly  well  how  long  and  how  ardently 
my  Soul  has  panted  after  this  connection  with  France.  Perhaps  there  was  not  an- 
other man  in  America  so  enthusiastically  strenuous  for  the  measure  as  myself.  In- 
deed as  Sliandy  says  it  was  my  Iloppy  Horse.  And  now  a  pack  of  rascals  would 
insinuate  (for  their  private  purposes)  that  I  would  injure  the  measure  I  have  been  so 
uniformly  and  so  warmly  promoting."     (Leo  MSS.,  Harvard  College.) 

The  efforts  of  the  British  ministry  to  break  up  the  alliance  between 
France  and  the  United  States  are  shown  by  notes  of  George  III  in  his 
correspondence  with  the  United  States;  by  the  attempt  to  bribe  Em- 
l)ress  Catharine  to  induce  France  to  abandon  the  American  cause;  *  by 
Deane's  "intercepted  letters,"  as  well  as  by  })ersonal  appeal  to  each 
party  separately,  t 

Conflict  between  commis-        X  HQ.  It  was  maintained  by  Franklin  that  both 

sioiiers    at    Pans   as  to  "^  "^ 

those  iusiiuctious.  policy  aud  houor  required  a  frank  and  friendly  dis- 

charge of  those  instructions  so  as  not  merely  to 
show  full  confidence  in  France,  but  in  all  matters  of  common  interest 
to  act  on  the  common  policy  agreed  on  with  Vergennes.  Thus  on  the 
critical  question  of  sending  ministers  to  foreign  courts  Franklin  not 
only  consulted  Vergennes,  but  maintained  that  Vergennes'  advice  not 


See  sujpra,  ^^7,  30.  t  Infra,  ^  29. 

467 


§110.]  INTKODUCTION.  [ClIAP.  IX. 

to  send  until  something  like  a  reception  should  be  assured  ought  to  be 
followed.*  But  Arthur  Lee  and  Adams  not  only  disagreed  with  him 
and  overruled  him  in  this,  but  took  the  position  that  France  should  not 
only  be  viewed  with  distrust,  but  that  she  should  be  made  to  know  that 
she  was  so  viewed. t  When  the  negotiations  for  peace  came  on,  the 
envoys,  Franklin,  Adams,  and  Jay,  agreed  that  no  definitive  peace  could 
be  signed  without  France's  assent,  but  Adams  and  Jay  held  that  not 
only  could  negotiations  be  carried  on  with  Britain  of  which  France  was 
to  have  no  notice,  but  that  a  preliminary  peace  could  be  agreed  on  with- 
out such  notice,  even  though  It  contained  an  article  which  was  by  its 
terms  to  be  kept  secret  from  France.  The  discussion  of  this  question, 
however,  must  be  remanded  to  another  volume,  to  which,  in  regard  to 
time,  it  properly  belongs,  while  the  views  of  Hamilton  and  Madison  as 
to  it  have  been  already  noticed.  |  That  of  Livingston  appears  in  his 
correspondence.  § 

In  3  Magazine  of  American  History,  41-43,  are  two  letters  from  J.  Q. 
Adams  to  William  Jay,  from  which  the  following  passages  are  ex- 
tracted.   The  first  is  from  a  letter  under  date  of  August  18,  1832 : 

"I  presume,  however,  that  you  have  a  copy  of  the  diplomatic  correspondence  recently 
})ublished  Ly  Congress  and  somewhat  incorrectly  edited  by  Mr.  Sparks;  I  mean  by 
tlie  notes  with  which  it  is  impoverished  from  the  hand  of  the  editor.  But  in  the  10th 
volume  of  that  compilation,  page  129,  there  is  a  letter  from  the  then  secretary  of 
foreign  affairs,  Robert  K.  Livingston,  dated  25th  of  March,  17b;3,  in  which  he  censures 
severely  enough  the  commissioners  for  their  distrust  of  the  court  of  Versailles.  That 
letter  he  sent  without  submitting  it  to  Congress,  but  he  had  submitted  the  previously 
received  despatches,  letters,  and  journals  of  the  commissioners,  giving  an  account  of 
their  treaty,  before  the  peace  between  Great  Britain  and  France  had  been  concluded. 
The  documents  from  the  commissioners,  he  says,  had  been  read  in  Congress,  then 
referred  back  to  hiui  for  a  report,  and  thereupon  he  had  written  to  Congress  a  letter, 
upon  consideration  of  which  motions  ivcre  made  and  debated  a  whole  day.  Then  his  let- 
ter and  the  motions  were  committed  and  a  report  brought  in,  which  had  been  two 
days  under  consideration,  when  the  arrival  of  a  vessel  from  Cadiz,  with  letters  from 
Count  D'Estaing  and  the  Marquis  de  La  Fayette,  announced  the  conclusion  of  the 
peace,  after  which  many  members  thought  it  would  be  improper  to  i^roceed  in  the 
rex)ort,  and  (says  he)  'in  that  state  it  remains,  without  any  express  decision.  From 
this  you  will  draw  your  own  inferences.  I  make  no  apology  for  the  part  I  have 
taken  in  this  business.' 

''  From  the  secret  journals  of  Congress  it  appears  that  the  letters  from  La  Fayette 
and  D'Estaing,  announcing  the  peace,  were  received  by  Congress  on  the  24th  of 
March,  only  the  day  before  this  letter  from  Mr.  Livingston  to  the  commissioners  was 
written.  They  had  immediately  superseded  all  further  debate  on  the  report.  From 
the  temper  of  his  letter  to  the  commissioners,  Avhich  he  says  he  intended  to  have  sub- 
mitted, but  which  he  did  not  submit  to  Congress,  from  the  reserved  manner  with  which 
he  speaks  of  the  debates,  motions,  and  rei)orts,  which  had  been  left  undecided,  and 

*Seeiw/m,  ^^^  120,124. 

t  See  infra,  ^  124,  131,  134,  145,  152. 

As  to  views  of  Hamilton  and  Madison  on  this  question,  see  supra,  $  4, 

As  to  Adams,  see  index,  title  Adams. 

{  See  supra,  ^  4. 

$  See  i-ndex,  title  Livingston. 

468 


CHAP.  IX.]  REVOLUTIONARY    DIPLOMACY.  [§111- 

from  his  disclaimer  of  apology  for  the  part  he  had  taken  in  the  business,  it  is  to  be  in 
ferred  that  ho  had  recommeuded  a  vote  of  censure,  but  whether  it  extended  to  all 
the  commissioners,  or  had  a  savin;:^  clause  for  Dr.  Franklin,  I  am  unable  to  say  ;  very 
certainly  it  included  your  father  and  mine.  The  reply  of  the  commissioners  to  Mr. 
Livingston,  dated  27th  July,  1783,  paj^e  193  of  the  same  volume,  and  signed  by  Dr. 
Franlclin  as  well  as  by  our  fathers,  was  an  extinguisher  to  Mr.  Livingston's  objec- 
tions." 

Tbe  following  is  from  a  letter  under  date  of  October  20,  1832  : 

''In  the  conclusion  of  the  preliminaries  of  peace  with  Great  Britain  in  November, 
1782,  Dr.  Franklin  concurred  with  his  colleagues  by  signing  the  treaty  without  pre- 
vious communication  of  its  contents  to  the  Count  do  Vergeunes.  To  have  separated 
from  his  colleagues  would  have  been  impriidoil ;  yet,  if  the  withholding  of  the  infor- 
mation from  the  French  Government  had  been  a  breach  of  good  fiiith,  a  man,  to  whom 
prudence  did  not  embrace  the  whole  duty  of  man,  would  have  refused  to  sign  and 
abided  the  consequences.  Franklin  signed  with  his  colleagues,  but  his  prudence 
gave  Vergennes  to  understand  that  the  withholding  of  the  contents  of  the  treaty  had 
not  been  with  his  approbation,  nor  did  ho  suffer  his  friends  in  Congress  to  be  igno- 
rant of  his  private  opinions,  and  hence  the  effort  of  Congress  to  pass  a  vote  of  cen- 
sure upon  their  commissioners  and  the  petulant  letter  of  their  secretary  of  foreign 
affairs." 

As  to  the  above  it  is  to  be  remarked  as  follows :  (1 )  By  John  Adams  it 
is  stated,  as  we  see  elsewhere,  that  the  contents  of  the  treaty  were  com- 
municated to  Vergennes,  which  conflicts  with  the  above  recital.  (2)  There 
are  no  letters  from  Franklin  advising  "  his  friends  "  in  Congress  as  to 
the  position  to  take  on  the  treaty.  But  Madison,  Hamilton,  and 
Witherspoon,  with  a  majority  of  members  with  them,  united,  as  is  noted 
above,  in  holding  that  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  alliance  and  of  the 
instructions  of  Congress  made  it  the  duty  of  the  commissioners  to  have 
conferred,  as  allies,  with  Vergennes  as  to  their  proceedings.  When, 
however,  the  treaty  of  peace,  in  itself  so  advantageous,  arrived,  and 
when  it  appeared  that  France  made  no  official  complaint  of  the  action 
of  the  commissioners,  and  was  even  ready  to  make  a  new  loan  to  the 
United  States,  then  Livingston,  Madison,  and  Hamilton  concurred  in 
holding  that  no  vote  of  censure  should  be  passed. 

Instructions  not  in  tiiomsoivoa        §  m.  By  j^^y  than  whom  there  could  not  be 

extraordinary.  ^  .-  t/  7 

found  a  man  of  higher  conscientiousness  or  more 
delicate  sense  of  honor,  it  was  held  that  so  far  as  these  instructions  im- 
plied the  subjection  of  the  American  envoys  to  the  court  of  France, 
they  imposed  a  degrading  submission  which  no  high-spirited  nation 
ought  to  impose  on  its  envoys.*  But,  on  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  the 
instructions  require  consultation  "with  the  French  Government  as  to 
peace  propositions  and  the  assent  of  that  government  to  any  definitive 
peace,  it  may  now  well  be  argued  that  such  conditions  are  not  only  con- 
sistent with  the  reciprocal  independence  of  the  contracting  sovereigns, 
but  that  they  are  the  essential  incidents  of  all  treaties  for  joint  wars.  Thus 
in  the  treaty  of  March  10, 1854,  between  France,  Great  Britain,  and  Tur- 

*  See  Hamilton  as  to  Jay's  attitude,  supra,  $  4. 

469 


§  111.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

key,  the  high  contracting"  parties  agreed  to  communicate  to  each  other, 
without  lapse  of  time,  all  i)ropositious  they  might  receive  from  Russia, 
directly  or  indirectly,  in  view  of  cessation  of  hostilities,  of  armistice, 
or  of  peace,  while  Turkey  was  not  to  conclude  peace  without  the  as- 
sent of  both  contracting  powers j  while  by  the  treaty  of  April  10, 1854, 
France  and  Great  Britain  *  engaged  to  receive  no  overtures  tending  to 
the  cessation  of  hostilities,  and  to  enter  into  no  engagement  with  the 
Eussian  court  without  having  deliberated  in  common,  t 

It  so  happened  that  in  1855  there  were  strong  temptations  to  induce 
France  to  receive  separate  proposals  from  Eussia.  In  1851,  as  was  said 
by  Drouyn  de  I'lluys  to  the  French  ambassador  at  London,  the  war  had 
been  half  militarj^,  half  naval,  in  which  the  two  powers  took  about  an 
equal  share.  When,  however,  Sebastopol  fell,  the  war,  if  continued, 
would  become  continental,  in  w^hich  case  the  burden  would  fall  mainly 
on  France.  France,  therefore,  naturally  claimed,  if  such  should  be  de- 
termined to  be  the  policy  of  the  allies,  some  compensation  for  the  unequal 
burden  thus  thrown  on  her;  and  as  such  compensation  she  suggested 
the  restoration  of  Poland.  This  proposition,  however,  was  not  even 
intimated  to  Eussia;  it  was  made  exclusively  and  confidentially  to  the 
English  ministry ',  and  by  both  England  and  France  it  was  agreed  that 
under  the  treaty  neither  could  make  separate  advances  to  Eussia,  and 
that  any  advances  which  Eussia  should,  directly  or  indirectly,  make  to 
the  one  should  be  forthwith  communicated  to  the  other,  to  be  deliber- 
ated on  in  common.  It  was  not  only  never  intimated  that  this  mutual 
pledge  to  entertain  peace  propositions  in  common  placed  either  party 
in  a  dishonorable  vassalage  to  the  other,  but  the  agreement  was  con- 


*  1  King-lake's  Crimean  War,  406.  The  treaties  are  given  in  full  in  6  De  Clercq's 
Collection,  422. 

+  In  Lane-Poole's  Life  of  »Stratford  Canning  (2,  433,  London,  1888),  the  biograx)her 
says: 

"  To  treat  separately  for  peace  was  expressly  prohibited  by  the  treaty  of  alliance; 
yet  at  the  close  of  1855  the  emperor  of  the  French  was  in  secret  commnnicatious  with 
the  son-in-law  of  the  Russian  chancellor,  and  their  purport  was  treasonable  to  Eng- 
land. Satisfied  with  the  half  successes  of  the  siege,  Louis  Napoleon  was  now  as 
anxious  for  peace  as  he  formerly  had  been  eager  for  military  glory.  All  the  plans 
for  the  coming  campaign  were  thrown  over,  and  after  a  vrhile  the  secret  negotiations 
bore  fruit  in  Russia's  acceptance  of  an  ultimatum.  Plenipotentiaries  were  summoned 
to  Paris,  where  Lord  Clarendon  soon  discovered  that  England  stood  alone." 

Yet,  even  assuming  that  there  were  these  prior  secret  conferences  between  the  French 
court  and  a  Russian  emissary,  the  terras  of  peace  were  discussed  by  the  allies  jointly, 
and  England  assented  to  them  in  conference  before  they  were  pressed  on  Russia.  There 
was  no  settlement  of  terms  between  the  envoys  of  one  ally  and  the  common  enemy. 
No  doubt  each  ally  had  his  own  method  of  sounding  the  enemy;  such,  in  all  allied 
belligerency,  is  necessarily  the  case.  It  is  not  unlikely  also  that  Louis  Napoleon, 
having  got  all  he  wanted  in  the  way  of  glory  from  the  war,  was  more  anxious  to  close 
it,  unprofitable  as  it  was,  than  was  England,  which  had  down  to  this  period  played 
an  inferior  part.  But  the  terms  of  peace,  as  finally  agreed  on,  were  discussed  jointly 
and  with  great  fullness,  and,  no  matter  what  were  the  inducements  that  operated  on 
the  allies  severally,  they  were  the  results  of  their  common  deliberations. 

470 


CHAP.  IX.]  REVOLUTIONARY    DIPLOMACY.  [§11^- 

sidered  as  an  essential  incident  of  all  alliances  of  belligercncj^,  and  was 
held  by  them  to  be  an  engagement  of  honor,  the  breach  of  which 
would  have  been  disgraceful.* 

We  may  therefore  properly  hold  that  while,  in  case  of  want  of  good 
faith  being  shown  by  Frauce  to  the  United  States,  the  United  States 
envoys  would  have  been  justified  in  taking  independent  measures  to 
protect  their  rights,  yet,  in  default  of  such  proof,  which  to  hold  good 
in  such  a  case  should  have  been  communicated  to  France  to  await  her 
reply,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  envoys  of  the  United  States  to  proceed 
in  peace  negotiations  in  concert  with  France.  Tlie  radical  difference 
between  Franklin  and  his  colleagues  was  in  the  question  of  iritst. 
Franklin  saw  no  reason  to  distrust  the  fidelity  of  France  at  any  time 
to  her  engagements  to  the  United  States  during  the  revolutionary  war. 
His  colleagues  did  not  share  this  confidence,  and  yet,  while  impressed 
by  this  distrust  of  their  ally,  they  made  no  appeal  for  explanation.  The 
weight  of  opinion,  as  will  hereafter  be  more  fully  seen,  is  now  that 
Franklin  was  right,  and  they  in  this  respect  wrong.  But  whatever 
may  have  been  the  correctness  of  their  view,  it  was  proper  that,  before 
making  it  the  basis  of  their  throwing  off  the  burden  of  treaty  obligation 
and  their  own  instructions,  they  should  have  first  notified  France  of 
their  complaint.  Obligations  cannot  be  repudiated  by  one  party  on  the 
ground  of  the  failure  of  the  other  party  to  perform  some  condition  im- 
posed on  him,  without  giving  him  notice  of  the  charge  against  him,  so 
that  he  could  have  the  opportunity  of  explanation,  t 

It  may  be  added,  on  the  merits,  that  the  extenuation  set  up  by  Jay 
and  Adams,  that  France  was  herself  untrue  to  her  obligations,  however 
honestly  the3^  believed  it,  can  not  now  be  sustained.     Livingston,  who 

*  See  2  Diplomatic  Study  of  (.'riuiean  War  (Russian  official  publicatiou),  340.  As 
indicating  the  Yiev*^  above  taken,  see  Livingston  to  Jay,  Dec.  30,  178*2,  Jan.  4, 1783, 

tTlie  American  envoys  were  not  to  blame  for  such  informal  conversations  with  Eu- 
lish  agents  as  was  a  necessary  incident  of  their  position.  But  supposing  that  the 
formal  negotiations  were  kept  secret  from  France,  the  precedent  was  a  bad  one  not 
merely  from  its  want  of  good  faith,  but  for  its  uselessness.  From  the  nature  of  things 
Vergennes  must  have  known  the  general  character  of  the  terms  to  which  the  nego- 
tiation was  tending  ;  and,  if  we  are  to  take  John  Adams'  statement  to  that  effect  lit- 
erally, these  terms  were  actually  communicated.  Vergennes  must  have  been  at  least 
informally  notified  of  them.  If  so,  he  could  at  that  time  have  stopped  the  negotia- 
tion by  a  resolute  protest.  But  that  he  was  willing  to  assent  to  these  terms,  though 
from  his  relation  to  Spain  he  could  not  initiate  them,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  not 
only  did  he,  after  the  preliminaries  were  disclosed  to  him,  make  a  new  loan  to  the 
United  States,  but  he  refused  to  come  to  final  terms  with  England  until  the  American 
preliminaries  were  accepted  as  a  definite  peace.  How  far  and  in  what  way  he  was 
informed  of  the  American  peace  negotiations  of  1782  is  a  question  which  is  still  open. 
But  if  the  negotiations  were  purposely  kept  secret  from  him  without  his  desire  that 
they  should  be,  it  is  difficult  to  defend  the  American  negotiators  in  thisrcspec^  when 
charged  with  want  of  compliance  with  their  treaty  obligation  to  France.  As  to  the 
distrust  of  France  felt  by  Arthur  Lee  and  Adams,  see  index,  titles  Arthur  Lee,  Adams, 
and  Franklin  ;  and  see  infra,  $$  131^.,  145,  148. 

471 


§111.]  INTRODUCTION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

knew  more  of  the  attitude  of  France  tban  any  public  man  on  the  Ameri- 
can side  except  Franklin,  swept  it  aside  as  groundless.  Edward  Ev^er- 
ett,  one  of  the  most  accomplished  historical  writers  and  diplomatists  the 
country  has  ever  produced,  speaks,  as  we  shall  see,  to  the  same  effect, 
and  other  historical  critics  of  authority,  to  be  also  hereafter  cited,  give 
us  the  same  conclusion.  Yet  there  are  other  reasons  wliich  may  excuse 
their  course,  and  that  of  Franklin,  who  concurred  with  them  rather  than 
defeat  a  peace.  In  the  first  place,  such  was  their  isolation,  that  tlieir 
means  of  communication  witli  Congress  was  stopped;  and  they  might 
well  have  argued  that  if  Congress  knew  that  the  English  envoys  refused 
to  treat  with  them  except  in  secret  conference  their  instructions  would 
have  been  modified.  In  the  second  place,  we  may  accept  Adams'  state- 
ment that  Yergennes  was  from  time  to  time  informally  advised  of  the 
nature  of  the  pending  propositions.  In  the  third  place,  the  articles 
agreed  on  in  1782  were  not  to  be  a  definite  treaty  except  with  the  assent 
of  France. 

472 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 


CHAPTER  X 

FRAXKLIX. 

His  appointment.  §  112.  FraukliD  was  seveiity  years  old  when  he  was 
elected,  on  September  27,  177G,  commissioiier  to  France. 
The  election  was  unanimous  and  on  the  first  ballot.  It  was  then  that 
he  made  to  Dr.  Rush,  who  sat  near  him,  this  remark:  "  I  am  old  and 
good  for  nothing ;  but  as  the  store-keepers  say  of  their  remnants  of 
cloth,  I  am  but  a  fag  end,  and  you  may  have  me  for  what  you  please  to 
give."  Jefierson  was  elected  on  the  next  ballot  but  declined,  and  then 
after  some  delay  followed  the  elections  of  Silas  Deane  and  then  of  Ar- 
thur Lee,  both  Deane  and  Lee  being  then  in  Europe.  Several  years 
afterwards  in  one  of  his  informal  letters  he  again  com])ared  himself  to 
a  remnant  of  cloth,  but  in  another  relation.*  He  said  whatever  the 
remnant  was  worth  belonged  to  his  country  and  had  but  little  value  to 
himself.  He  suffered  greatly  during  his  voyage  to  enter  on  his  mission  ; 
from  time  to  time  during  the  remainder  of  his  life  he  was  tortured  by 
gout  and  stone.  But  it  is  a  consolation  to  those  who  are  old  and  sick 
to  feel  that  it  was  not  until  his  seventieth  year,  when  subject  to  cruel 
diseases  that  grew  on  him,  that  Franklin  entered  on  a  diplomatic  career 
which  surpai^ses  all  others  in  its  permanent  results  of  good. 

His  probity  and  courage.  §  113.  Bcforc  Franklin  left  for  France  he  placed 

in  the  hands  of  Congress,  then  in  dire  necessity 
for  want  of  money,  all  his  available  funds,  knowing  that  if  the  cause 
failed  his  loan  failed  with  it.t  His.salary  when  sustaining  the  burden 
of  the  momentous  negotiations  with  France  and  England  was  the  same  as 
that  of  the  other  American  envoys,  among  whom  was  Izard,  who  speaks 
of  himself  as  a  man  of  fortune,  but  who  never  even  visited  the  court  to 

*  Infra,  Franklin  to  Hartley,  April  23,  1778,  noticed  in  next  section. 

tin  explaining  to  Ingenhonsz,  on  Feb.  11,  1788,  the  fall  in  American  securities, 
Franklin  tlins  writes:  "  Snch  certificates  are  low  in  value  at  present,  bnt  we  hope 
and  believe  they  will  succeed  when  our  new  projected  Cou.stitution  is  established.  I 
lent  to  the  old  Congress  three  thousand  pounds  in  the  value  of  hard  money  and  took 
their  certificates,  promising  interest  at  six  per  cent.,  but  I  have  received  no  interest 
for  several  years,  and  if  I  were  now  to  sell  the  principal  I  could  not  get  more  than  a 
sixth  part.  You  must  not  ascribe  this  to  want  of  honesty  in  our  government,  but  to 
want  of  ability,  the  war  having  exhausted  all  the  faculties  of  the  country.  The  pub- 
lic funds  even  of  Great  Britain  sunk  by  the  war  the  three  per  cents  from  95  to  54." 
(9  Franklin  Papers,  Bigelow's  ed.,  456.) 

473 


§113.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

which  he  was  accredited.  And  unscrupulous  and  energetic  as  was  the 
industry  with  which  Franklin's  private  life  during  his  stay  in  France 
was  scanned,  and  carefully  as  were  his  entire  accounts  in  the  subsequent 
investigations  overhauled,  not  one  single  instance  of  mismanagement  of 
public  money  was  traced  to  him.  Not  himself  a  trained  accountant, 
with  immense  public  business  in  his  hands,  he  had  kept  for  years  the 
most  complicated  accounts  with  a  fidelity  which,  when  he  gave  np  his 
stewardship,  showed  that  he  not  only  had  been  conscientiously  faithful, 
but  strictly  accurate,  in  the  discharge  of  business  trusts  foreign  to  his 
diplomatic  duties  and  uncongenial  to  his  habits. 

Of  the  charges  against  him  in  this  relation  Sparks  thus  speaks  in  an 
article  in  the  North  American  Eeview  for  April,  1830  (vol.  30,  p.  508) : 

'•  Wheu  Mr.  William  Lee  (who  was  then  the  chief  commercial  agent  at  Nantes)  was 
about  going  to  Prussia,  he  proposed  to  appoint  Mr.  Williams  to  be  a  permanent  agent. 
Dr.  Frauklin  wrote  to  him  in  reply  as  follows:  '  Your  proposition  about  appointing 
agents  in  the  ports  shall  be  laid  before  the  commissioners  when  they  meet.  In  the 
mean  time  I  cau  only  say  that  as  to  my  nejjhew,  Mr.  Williams,  though  I  have  from 
long  knowledge  and  experience  of  him  a  high  opinion  of  his  abilities,  activity,  and 
integrity,  I  will  have  no  hand  in  his  appointment  or  in  approving  it,  not  heing  desirous  of 
his  being  in  any  way  concerned  in  that  hnsiness.'  And  yet  we  are  called  on  to  believe  that 
his  holding  the  appointment  was  a  scheme  of  Dr.  Franklin's  to  give  him  a  chance 
to  grow  rich  out  of  the  public  money. 

''Again,  he  repeatedly  urged  Congress  to  relieve  him  from  the  burden  of  the  mercan- 
tile business  in  the  management  of  which  nearly  all  the  expenditures  of  the  money  that 
passed  through  his  hands  were  made.  '  The  trouble  and  vexation,'  he  says,  *  which 
these  maritime  affairs  give  me  are  inconceivable.  I  have  often  expressed  to  Congress 
my  wish  to  be  relieved  from  them  and  that  some  person  better  acquainted  with  them 
and  better  situated  might  be  appointed  to  manage  them.  Much  money  as  well  as  time 
wcjuld,  I  am  sure,  be  saved  by  such  an  appointment.'  On  several  occasions  he  reiter- 
ated earnestly  the  same  request ;  that  is,  desired  Congress  to  take  out  of  his  hands  the 
very  means  which  his  enemies  have  asserted  him  to  have  been  eager  in  retaining  for 
the  purpose  of  advancing  his  private  ends  at  the  expense  of  his  integrity.  These 
facts  require  no  comment." 

After  noticing  the  "  lost  million  "  episode,  Sparks  goes  on  to  say : 

"Lastly,  it  has  been  often  said,  and  is  sometimes  repeated  at  this  day,  that  Dr. 
Franklin  never  settled  his  public  accounts.  In  its  spirit  and  i)urport  this  assertion 
is  essentially  false.  Some  months  before  Dr.  Frauklin  lelt  France,  Mr.  Barclay,  the 
American  consul  to  that  country,  arrived  there  with  full  power  and  authority  from 
Congress  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  accounts  of  all  persons  in  Europe  who  had  been 
intrnsted  with  the  expenditure  of  the  public  money  of  the  United  States.  Under  this 
authority  he  examined  methodically  the  entire  mass  of  Dr.  Franklin's  accounts.  The 
difference  between  the  result  of  his  investigation  and  the  statement  of  Dr.  Franklin 
was  seven  sols,  or  about  six  cents,  which  by  mistake  the  doctor  had  overcharged." 

The  following  letter  shows  Franklin's  position  as  to  his  accounts  after 
his  arrival  in  Philadelphia  : 

Franlclin  to  the  President  of  Congress.^ 

''  Philadelphia,  Koveinher  29,  1788. 
"  Dear  Sir  :  When  I  had  the  honor  of  being  the  minister  of  the  United  States  atthe 
court  of  France,  Mr.  Barclay,  arriving  there  brought  me  the  following  resolution  of 
Congress : 

"  2  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  530. 
474 


CHAP.  X]  FRANKLIN.  [§11'^ 

"  '  licsoJndt  Tluit  a  commissioner  be  appointed  by  Cougress,  witb  full  power  and 
authority  to  liquidate  <'ind  Jinally  io  settle  the  accounts  of  all  the  servants  of  the 
United  States  who  have  been  intrusted  with  the  expenditure  of  public  money  in 
Europe,  and  to  commence  and  prosecute  such  suits,  causes,  and  actions,  as  may  be 
necessary  for  that  purpose,  or  for  the  recovery  of  any  property  of  the  said  United 
States  in  the  hands  of  any  person  or  pcM'sons  whatsoever. 

'''That  the  said  commissioner  bo  authorized  to  appoint  one  or  more  clerks,  with 
such  an  allowance  as  he  may  think  reasonable. 

"  'That  the  said  commissioner  and  clerks,  respectively,  take  an  oath  before  some 
person  duly  authorized  to  administer  an  oath,  faithfully  to  execute  the  trust  reposed 
in  them  respectively. 

"  '  Congress  proceeded  to  the  election  of  a  commissioner;  and  ballots  being  taken, 
Mr,  T.  Barclay  was  elected. ' 

"  In  i)ursuance  of  this  resolution,  and  as  soon  as  Mr.  Barclay  was  at  leisure  from 
more  pressing  business,  I  rendered  to  him  all  my  accounts,  which  he  examined  and 
stated  methodically.  By  his  statement  he  found  a  balance  due  me  on  the  4th  of  May, 
1785,  of  7,533  livres  19  sols  3  den.,  which  I  accordingly  received  of  the  Congress 
banker  ;  the  difference  between  my  statement  and  his  being  only  seven  sols,  which 
by  mistake  I  had  overcharged — about  three  pence  halfpenny  sterling. 

"At  my  request,  however,  the  accounts  were  left  open  for  the  consideration  of 
Congress,  and  not  finally  settled,  there  being  some  articles  on  which  I  desired  their 
judgment,  and  having  some  equitable  demands,  as  I  thought  them,  for  extra  services, 
which  he  had  not  conceived  himself  empowered  to  allow,  and  therefore  I  did  not  put 
them  in  my  account.  He  transmitted  the  accounts  to  Congress,  and  had  advice  of 
their  being  received.  On  my  arrival  at  Philadelphia  one  of  the  first  things  I  did  was 
to  dispatch  my  grandson,  William  T.  Franklin,  to  New  York,  to  obtain  a  final  set- 
tlement of  those  accounts;  ho  having  long  acted  as  my  secretary,  and  being  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  transactions,  was  able  to  give  an  explanation  of  the  articles  that 
might  seem  to  require  explaining,  if  any  such  there  were.  He  returned  without 
effecting  the  settlement,  being  told  that  it  could  not  be  made  till  the  arrival  of  some 
documents  expected  from  France.  What  those  documents  w^ere  I  have  not  been  in- 
formed, nor  can  I  readily  conceive,  as  all  the  vouchers  existing  there  had  been  ex- 
amined by  Mr.  Barclay ;  and  I,  having  been  immediately  after  my  arrival  engaged 
in  the  public  business  of  this  State,  waited  in  expectation  of  hearing  from  Congress, 
in  case  any  j)art  of  my  accounts  had  been  objected  to. 

''It  is  now  more  than  three  years  that  those  accounts  have  been  before  that  hon- 
orable body,  and  to  this  day  no  notice  of  any  such  objection  has  been  communicated 
to  me.  But  reports  have  for  some  time  past  been  circulated  here,  and  propagated  in 
the  newspapers,  that  I  am  greatly  indebted  to  the  United  States  for  large  sums  that 
had  been  put  into  my  hands,  and  that  I  avoid  a  settlement.  This,  together  with 
the  little  time  one  of  my  age  may  expect  to  live,  makes  it  necessary  for  me  to  request 
earnestly,  which  I  hereby  do,  that  the  Congress  would  be  pleased,  without  further 
delay,  to  examine  those  accounts ;  and  if  they  find  therein  any  article  or  articles 
which  they  do  not  understand  or  approve,  that  they  would  cause  me  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  same,  that  I  may  have  an  opportunity  of  offering  such  explanations  or  rea- 
sons in  support  of  them  as  may  be  in  my  power,  and  then  that  the  accounts  may  be 
finally  closed. 

"I  hope  the  Congress  will  soon  be  able  to  attend  to  this  business  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  public,  as  well  as  in  condescension  to  my  request.  In  the  mean  time,  if 
there  be  no  impropriety  in  it,  I  would  desire  that  this  letter,  together  with  another 
relating  to  the  same  sul)ject,  the  copy  of  which  is  hereto  annexed,  may  be  put  upon 
their  minutes. 

•'With  every  sentiment  of  respect  and  duty  to  Congress,  I  am,  sir,  &c., 

"  B.  Franklin." 

475 


§114.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

His  courage  Dever  sank,  no  matter  bow  great  were  the  surrenders  be 
bad  to  make,  or  liow  dark  migbt  be  tbe  future. 

Wben  Hartley  advised  bini,  "if  tempestuous  times  should  come,  take 
care  of  your  own  safety,  events  are  troublesome  and  men  may  be 
capricious,"  the  answer  was,  "I  thank  you  for  your  kind  caution,  but 
liaving  nearly  finished  a  long  life,  I  set  but  little  value  on  what  remains 
of  it.  Perhaps  the  best  use  such  an  old  fellow  can  be  put  to  is  to  make 
a  martyr  of  him."* 

Hartley  seems  to  have  taken  much  credit  to  himself  for  this  corre- 
spondence.    Hutchinson  thus  writes  on  July  17,  1779: 

''Mr.  Bastard  said  to  me  to-day  that  Hartley  the  member  told  him  that  *  *  * 
in  a  uote  to  Fraiikliu  he  advised  him  to  take  care  of  himself.  Fraukliu  sent  him  an 
answer,  that  tbe  caution  bronght  to  his  mind  the  common  language  of  a  mercer,  *  It 
is  only  a  remnant,  and  therefore  of  little  value.'  "     (2  Ilutchiuson's  Diary,  2G8.) 

His  determination  to  maintain  the  cause  in  which  he  was  embarked 
rose  with  the  difficulties  in  its  way.  His  attitude  as  to  other  lines  of 
solicitation  is  illustrated  in  his  letter  to  Wessenstein  of  July  1, 1778,  as 
explained  in  the  notes  to  that  letter. 

Of  Franklin's  life  no  one  was  a  more  competent  or  closer  observer 
than  Wasbington,  and  to  Franklin,  on  September  25, 1785,  shortly  after 
his  return  to  America,  he  wrote  as  follows : 

"  Amid  the  public  gratulations  on  your  safe  return  to  America  after  a  loug  absence, 
and  the  many  eminent  services  you  have  rendered  it,  *  *  *  permit  an  individual 
to  join  the  public  voice  in  expressing  a  sense  of  them,  and  to  assure  you  that  as  no 
one  entertains  more  respect  for  your  character,  so  no  one  can  salute  you  with  more 
sincerity  or  with  greater  pleasure  than  I  do  on  this  occasion."  (9  Franklin  Papers, 
Bigelow's  ed.,  264.) 

And  shortly  before  Franklin's  death  Washiugton  thus  addressed  him : 

"  If  to  be  venerated  for  benevolence,  if  to  be  admired  for  talents,  if  to  be  esteemed 
for  patriotism,  if  to  be  beloved  for  philanthropy,  can  gratify  the  human  mind,  you 
must  have  the  pleasing  consolation  to  know  that  you  have  not  lived  in  vain.  And  I 
flatter  myself  that  it  will  not  be  ranked  among  the  least  grateful  occurrences  of  your 
life  to  be  assured  that,  so  long  as  I  retain  my  memory,  you  will  be  recollected  with 
respect,  veneration,  and  affection  by  your  sincere  friend."  (10  Franklin  Papers, 
Bigelow's  ed.,  149.) 

High  intellectual  gifts.  §  114.  Franklin  is  spoken  of  by  Matthew  Arnold 

as  "  a  man  who  was  the  very  incarnation  of  sanity 
and  clear  sense,  a  man  the  most  considerable,  it  seems  to  me,  whom 
America  has  yet  produced."  No  American  would  assent  to  the  last 
statement  so  far  as  concerns  Washington ;  and,  putting  Washington 
aside,  there  are  some  who,  on  the  question  as  to  the  "  most  consider- 
able man,"  would  postpone  him  to  Hamilton,  some  who  would  ])ostpone 
him  to  Jefferson.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  we  may  without  hesitation  say 
that  to  sagacity  which  has  rarely  been  equaled,  to  a  fairness  of  judg- 
ment and  equanimity  of  temper  which  neither  flattery  nor  animosity 
could  swerve,  to  a  perception  of  the  conditions  of  the  times  which  en- 

*  Letter  of  April  23,  1778,  supra. 
476 


CHAP.  X.J  TKANKLIN.  [§  US. 

abled  him  best  to  utilize  them  for  his  country,  he  brought  to  tlie  devo- 
lution an  tulministrative  experience  far  greater  than  any  man  in  the 
United  States.  There  are  few  points  of  political  or  economical  action 
as  to  which  his  judgment  was  not  sound;  there  is  no  question  as  to 
which  we  can  look  upon  him,  at  least  in  his  later  years,  as  inlluenced 
by  ambition,  or  at  any  time  of  his  lite  by  fear  or  by  greed.  When  he 
sailed  tor  France  in  1776,  repose  in  the  nature  of  things  would  have 
been  his  principal  desire,  and,  as  essential  to  that  repose,  peace  in  the 
political  world.  Of  his  tender  attachment  to  England  there  can  be  no 
question.  From  Enghiud  he  had  received,  with  one  bitter  denunciation, 
many  honors  and  kindnesses.  His  son,  to  whom  he  was  much  attached, 
was  a  strong  loyalist  and  royal  governor  ot  Isew  Jersey.  But  in  Frank- 
lin's judgment  it  was  essential  to  freedom  and  to  ultimate  peace  that 
the  English  yoke  should  be  cast  oft',  and  though  he  abhorred  war,  yet 
he  maintained  that  war  should  be  waged  until  independence  was  se- 
cured. He  devoted,  with  perfect  courage,  the  remainder  of  his  life  to 
the  work.  He  ran  the  risk  of  capture  at  sea.  He  repelled  every  induce- 
ment held  out  to  him  from  England  to  give  up  France  and  to  enter  into 
relations  with  England,  which  would  give  the  United  States  independ- 
ence in  everything  but  name.  He  seems  never  even  to  have  contem- 
plated these  inducements,  but  he  persevered  iu  his  course  until  a  peace 
was  agreed  on  which  gave  his  country  more  than  any  dispassionate  ob- 
server would  have  held  it  at  the  time  possible  to  obtain. 

The  following  volumes  contain  the  letters  written  by  him  in  this  cause. 
It  is  questionable  whether  any  diplomatic  j^apers  equal  to  them  exist. 
They  do  uot  give,  it  is  true,  the  exhaustive  views  of  local  politics  which 
are  to  be  found  in  Jay's  letters  from  Spain,  nor  the  elaborate  summaries 
of  European  news  to  be  found  in  the  letters  of  Adams  from  Holland. 
They  have  not  the  element  of  gossip  which  made  Malmesbury's  Kussiau 
letters  so  entertaining,  nor  do  they  indulge  in  a  rhetoric  so  majestic  as 
that  we  meet  in  some  instances  in  the  papers  of  Webster.  But  for  fit- 
ness for  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  written,  it  may  be  questioned 
whether,  taking  them  as  a  body,  there  a,re  any  diplomatic  papers  equal 
to  them.  They  have  nothing  of  what  is  called  the  diplomatic  style,  the 
"availing  myself  again  of  the  opportunity  to  renew,"  etc,  formularies 
of  the  mechanical  diplomatist.  But  the}^  are  terse,  simple,  full  of  tact, 
always  persuasive,  always  just  in  tone,  always  presenting  the  right 
reasons  for  what  is  asked  or  the  right  explanations  for  what  is  to  be 
defended.  And  they  abound  in  those  epigram matical  expressions  of 
duty  as  remarkable  for  wisdom  as  for  wit,  the  authorship  of  which, 
taking  all  his  publications  together,  have  made  Franklin  of  all  men  the 
one  to  whom  proverbial  philosophy  in  its  best  sense  owes  most. 

Kuowied^e  of  existing  po-        §  115,  Qf  ^n  men  iu  pubUc  life  Franklin  was  the 

litical  conditions.  ■^  *■ 

most  familiar,  when  he  came  to  France  as  envoy, 
with  the  political  conditions  with  which  he  had  to  deal.    As  postmaster- 

477 


^116.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

geueral  lie  bad  traversed  every  inhabited  section  of  the  United  States. 
He  had  been  prominent  in  Pennsylvania  politics  for  forty  years,  during 
which  period  he  had  been  concerned  in  the  various  projects  which 
were  framed  for  alliance  between  the  Colonies.  He  had  been  largely 
concerned  in  the  raising  and  forwarding  of  men  and  supplies  for  the 
campaigns  against  France  on  the  American  shores,  and  to  his  sagacity 
and  patriotism  was  largely  due  the  success  of  those  campaigns.  Nor 
were  his  eftbrts  confined  to  America.  He  had  been  agent  for  Penn- 
sylvania, Massachusetts,  New  Jersey,  and  Georgia  in  England  for  a 
series  of  years.  Perhaps  there  was  no  living  man  so  familiar  with  and 
observant  of  English  politics  as  was  Franklin  at  the  time  when  he 
left  England  finally  in  1775.  To  France  also  his  keen  powers  of  obser- 
vation and  analysis  were  turned  first  as  an  antagonist  during  the  war 
in  which  the  Colonies  joined  with  England  against  her,  then  as  a  visitor 
when  he  went  to  Paris  in  1767  as  an  honored  guest,  then  as  an  expect- 
ant ally  when  he  went  again  to  Paris  in  1776. 
Franklin's  position  in  1767-68  is  thus  described  by  De  Witt: 

"  His  patriotism  was  as  complicated  as  his  functions.  The  agent  of  Georgia,  New 
Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania  in  London,  and  at  the  head  of  the  general  post-oiBce  in  Amer- 
ica, he  was  at  one  and  the  same  time  a  representative  of  colonial  discontent  and  an 
English  official;  there  was  a  moment  when  there  was  even  a  question  of  appointing 
him  undersecretary  of  state  for  the  Colonies,  then  tilled  by  Lord  Hillsborough,  and 
he  showed  himself  quite  ready  to  accept  this  post  conformably  to  his  triple  maxim, 
*  Never  to  ask  a  place,  never  to  refuse  a  place,  and  never  to  resign  one! '  By  position, 
therefore,  he  was  an  almost  impartial  intermediary  between  England  and  America,  a 
peacemaker  as  tenacious  as  far-sighted,  whose  daily  attempts  at  success  in  no 
degree  trammeled  bis  liberty  of  thought,  and  whose  melancholy  anticipations  were 
unable  to  relax  bis  perseverance.  This  was  one  of  the  great  marks  of  his  superiority; 
he  could  see  in  the  future  and  live  in  the  present.  The  separation  he  expected  might 
probably  be  still  remote ;  why  should  he  not,  while  laboring  to  avoid  it  now,  facilitate 
its  i^rogress  and  prolong  the  peace  of  the  world."     (De  Witt's  Jefferson,  59.) 

A  liberal  constructionist.  §116.  It  has  already  bccu  said  that  Franklin, 

as  between  the  two  schools  of  revolutionary  states- 
men, the  "liberatives"  on  the  one  side  and  the  "  constructives"  on  the 
other,  was  eminently  a  ''  constructive."  *  Reorganization  with  him  was 
a  necessary  element  of  destruction ;  he  never  sought  to  pull  down  a 
political  edifice  without  siieculating  what  he  should  put  in  its  place.  We 
have  this  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  aversion  he  showed  in  England 
to  Wilkes,  whom  he  regarded  as  a  mere  destructive,  without  any  i)lans 
for  future  good  government ;  and  to  this  aversion  may  be  in  part  traced 
the  antagonisms  between  himself  and  the  Wilkes  school,  as  hereafter 
noticed.  But  here  again  a  subdistiuction  is  to  be  observed.  Those 
engaged  in  a  work  of  political  republican  construction  fall  themselves 
into  two  classes,  those  who  would  impose  on  the  people  a  fixed  code 
of  unchangeable  laws,  and  those  who,  after  laying  down  a  general  re- 
publican constitution,  leave  the  imposition  of  such  laws  as  are  neces- 

*  See  supra,  ^^  02^.,  4. 
478 


CHAP.  X.]  FKANKLIN.  [§  116. 

sarily  tliictuating;  to  be  determined  by  i)opular  couscieiice  and  polity 
as  moulded  by  the  condition  of  the  times,  and  trusting  far  more  to  a 
creation  of  a  right  public  conscience  in  matters  of  detail  than  to  the 
force  of  prior  absolute  legislation.  Of  the  latter  school  was  Franklin, 
as  the  correspondence  that  follows  abundantly  shows.  He  was  opposed 
to  issuing  i)aper  money  beyond  the  limit  of  the  probable  capacity  of 
the  country  to  redeem,  and  he  was  in  favor  of  taxation  to  the  utmost 
extent  of  the  country  to  bear;  yet  in  pressing  this  position  on  Congress 
through  Morris  he  dwelt  much  more  on  the  necessity  of  raising  a  right 
public  sentiment  as  to  debt  paying  than  on  the  wisdom  of  any  merely 
legislative  action.  He  urged  great  economy  in  private  life,  and  particu- 
larly the  non-purchase  of  luxuries,  but  he  objected  to  the  system  of 
sumptuary  laws  proposed  by  some  of  his  colleagues.  This  same  distinc- 
tion was  exhibited  in  1777-'78  in  our  discussion  with  France  as  to  the 
treaty  of  commerce  then  under  consideration.  West  Indian  molasses 
was  then  an  article  of  great  importance  to  New  England,  and  a  fear  was 
felt  that  France,  influenced  by  her  colonists,  at  some  moment  of  irrita- 
tion might  restrict  its  exi)ortation.  This  danger  Deane,  a  Connecticut 
man,  expressed  himself  as  feeling  very  keenly,  and  Franklin  therefore 
proposed  that  France  should  bind  herself  not  to  impose  in  future  any 
such  restrictions.  This,  however,  required  some  correlative  restriction 
on  the  United  States,  and  Franklin  at  once  agreed  to  insert  a  clause 
binding  the  United  States  to  impose  no  export  duties  on  articles  going 
to  France,  defending  the  clause  not  us  n  quid  pro  quo^  but  as  the  expression 
of  a  sound  i)riuciple  of  political  economy,  that  freedom  of  commerce 
should  not  be  impaired  by  restrictions  on  exports  of  any  kind  whatso- 
ever.* 

In  the  negotiating  of  the  same  treaty  as  well  as  of  subsequent  trea- 
ties in  which  Franklin  was  concerned,  the  rule  that  free  ships  make 
free  goods  was  affirmed;  the  privileges  of  privateers  placed  under  specific 
limitations  ;  the  liberty  for  either  party  to  trade  with  a  nation  at  war 
with  the  other  asserted  ;  contraband  goods  so  specified  as  to  prevent 
the  undue  extension  of  the  disability;  reciprocal  municipal  rights  as- 
sured to  the  subjects  of  the  contracting  parties ;  the  right  of  search  re- 
stricted; and  sea  letters  made  the  basis  of  international  protection, 
irresi^ective  of  municipal  legislation.  Though  a  belligerent,  he  strove 
uniformly  for  the  protection  of  neutral  rights,  neutrality  being  the  con- 
dition which  he  held  should  receive  every  construction  of  international 
law  in  its  favor;  though  representing  a  country  which  had  every  oppor- 
tunity and  temptation  to  retaliate  for  the  cruelties  to  which  it  was  sub- 
jected under  the  guise  of  war,  he  did  his  best  to  establish  a  humane 
system  of  war,  restraining  its  horrors  and  mitigating  the  discomforts 
of  prisoners. t  Thus  while  a  '^  constructive"  revolutionist,  seeking  to 
establish  a  new  system  in  the  place  of  the  old  he  desired  to  set  aside, 

*  Supra,  $  46.  tSee,  as  to  Franklin's  position  in  this  relation,  supra,  $  4. 

479 


§117.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

the  system  which  he  sought  to  establish  was  one  of  liberty  so  far  as 
consistent  with  the  necessary  prerogatives  of  the  State.  Probably  in 
matters  domestic  his  views  of  government  found  their  best  expression 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  he  assisted  in  framing. 
It  was  to  his  sagacity  and  intluence  that  we  owe  that  compromise  which 
represented  the  States  in  the  Senate  equally,  and  in  the  House  in  pro- 
portion to  their  population,  by  the  adoption  of  which  the  Constitution 
was  saved. 

Franklin,  in  his  striking  comparison  of  the  Jews  and  anti-Federol- 
ists,  *  which  he  issued  when  the  federal  Constitution  was  in  discussion 
in  Pennsylvania,  took  strong  ground  in  favor  of  the  jure  divino  neces- 
sity not  of  any  particular  government^  but  of  some  government  by  which 
liberty  would  be  made  secure  5  and  the  federal  Constitution  offering 
such  security,  he  urged  that  it  should  not  be  defeated  merely  on  account 
of  the  popular  opposition  to  it.  Such  opposition  he  held  should  be 
looked  on  with  suspicion  when  stimulated  by  men  personally  interested 
in  merely  local  offices.  We  must  at  the  same  time  remember  that  Frank- 
lin was  a  strong  advocate  of  the  laissez  /aire  doctrine  of  political  econ- 
omy, and  that  the  system  he  advocated  was  one  which  was  to  protect 
all  lawful  action  of  individuals  free  from  government  interference,  and 
in  which  government  was  to  do  nothing  for  the  people  which  the  people 
could  do  for  themselves. 

Alleged  failure  to  appeal  to        §  nj.  gut  though  thus  making  the  morals  and 

bigu  principle.  -^  n  ^ 

economies  of  private  life  to  depend  not  upon  leg- 
islation, but  upon  the  conscience  of  individuals,  Franklin's  system  may 
be  regarded  as  defective  in  its  want  of  appeal  to  the  sanction  of  divine 
righteousness  and  justice.  He  bases  his  arguments  in  favor  of  frugality 
and  industry  and  integrity  and  duty  to  the  State,  even  of  humanity  in 
war  as  well  as  in  peace,  mainly  on  policy,  though  as  to  outrages  in  war 
we  find  him  constantly  invoking  that  sense  of  right  which  he  regards 
as  inherent  in  the  human  breast.  Yet,  while  such  was  the  case,  we 
notice  in  him  none  of  those  appeals  to  a  divine  authority,  the  source  of 
this  sense  of  right,  which  adds  such  a  glow  and  solemnity  to  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  to  Chatham's  speeches  on  the  American 
war,  to  Webster's  speeches  on  the  Union 5  nor  do  we  find  any  recogni- 
tion of  the  sublime  in  political  conception  such  as  we  meet  with  in  the 
later  publications  of  Burke.  It  is  impossible  also  not  to  feel  that  so  far 
as  concerns  the  inculcation  of  the  duties  of  economy  and  morality  Frank- 

*  ''  On  the  whole,  it  tappears  that  the  Israelites  were  a  people  jealous  of  their  newly 
acquired  Uherty,  which  jealousy  was  in  itself  no  fault,  but  when  tliey  suffered  it  to  be 
worked  upon  by  artful  men,  pretending  public  good  with  nothing  really  in  view  but 
private  interest,  they  were  led  to  oppose  the  establishment  of  the  new  Constitution, 
whereby  they  brought  upon  themselves  much  inconvenience  and  misfortune.  *  *  * 
Popular  opposition  to  a  public  measure  is  no  jiroof  of  its  impropriety  even  though  the 
opposition  be  excited  and  headed  by  men  of  distinction,"  (9  Franklin  Papers,  Bige- 
low'sed.,  438.) 

480 


CHAP.  X,]  FRANKLIN.  [§^17. 

lin  too  closely  restricts  bimself  to  his  owu  country.  When  he  addressed 
advice  of  this  class  to  Morris  as  a  basis  on  which  the  financial  system 
of  the  United  States  was  to  rest  he  was  living  in  Paris,  in  a  scene  where 
great  purity  and  highmiudedness  on  the  part  of  the  king,  and  great 
conscientiousness  and  courtesy  on  the  part  of  Vergennes,  were  in  pain- 
ful contrast  with  the  dissoluteness  and  profligacy  of  the  nobility,  and 
the  gross  oppression  of  the  people  as  a  mass.  It  is  true  that  in  shutting 
his  eyes  to  such  a  spectacle,  or  at  least  declining  to  comment  on  it,  he 
was  following  one  of  his  own  maxims,  that  that  would  be  a  clean  town 
in  which  every  one  swept  before  his  own  door.  Yet  here  was  a  cause 
in  which  all  humanity  was  interested,  and  here  was  a  nation  whose 
hospitality  Franklin  was  enjoying  to  an  eminent  degree,  and  here  were 
tiagraut  violations  of  sound  economy  sucli  as  he  would  have  vigorously 
warred  against  in  his  own  land,  and  here  was  the  rumbling  underneath 
of  a  volcano  of  which  it  is  hard  to  think  that  his  exquisite  perception 
could  have  been  unconscious.  It  is  at  this  point  that  he  stands  inferior 
to  Jay,  who  when  with  him  in  Paris  was  so  profoundly  impressed  with 
a  consciousness  of  the  perilous  immorality  of  what  was  called  society, 
with  the  recklessness  with  which  domestic  politics  were  managed,  and 
with  the  mutterings  of  a  storm  which  he  could  hear  approach.  Yet, 
deticient  as  may  have  been  Franklin  in  the  sense  of  the  sublime  in 
politics  and  in  a  cosmopolitan  conception  of  political  duty  and  in  the 
recognition  in  his  papers  at  this  period  of  the  Divine  sanction,  it  must 
be  remembered  that  it  was  from  him  that  proceeded,  on  June  28,  1787, 
when  the  Constitutional  Convention  had  been  for  more  than  two  mouths 
occupied  unavailingly  with  the  question  of  State  representation,  the 
following  resolution : 

"Tliat  henceforth  prayers,  imploriug  the  assistance  of  Heaven  and  its  blessings, 
be  held  in  this  assembly  every  morning  before  ^ye  proceed  to  business ;  and  that  one 
or  more  of  the  clergy  of  this  city  be  requested  to  ofliciate  in  that  service." 

In  the  course  of  his  remarks  on  this  resolution  he  said: 

*'In  this  situation  of  this  assembly,  groping  as  it  were  in  the  dark  to  find  political 
truth,  and  scarce  able  to  ^listinguish  it  wl^en  presented  to  us,  how  has  it  happened^ 
sir,  that  we  have  not  hitherto  once  thought  of  applying  to  the  Father  of  Lights  to 
ilhiminate  our  understandings  ?  In  the  beginning  of  the  contest  with  Britain,  when 
we  were  sensible  of  danger,  we  had  daily  prayers  in  this  room  for  the  Divine  protec- 
tion! Our  prayers,  sir,  were  heard,  and  they  were  graciously  answered.  All  of  us 
who  were  engaged  in  the  struggle  must  have  observed  frequent  instances  of  asupeu- 
iuteudiug  Providence  in  our  favor.  To  that  kiud  Providence  we  owe  this  happy  op- 
portunity of  consulting  in  peace  on  the  means  of  establishing  our  future  national 
felicity.  And  have  we  now  forgotten  that  powerful  Friend  ?  Or  do  we  imagine  we  no 
longer  need  its  assistance?  I  have  lived,  sir,  a  long  time,  and  the  longer  I  live  the 
more  convincing  proofs  I  see  of  this  truth,  that  god  governs  in  the  affairs  of  men  !  And  if 
a  sparrow  can  not  fall  to  the  ground  without  his  notice,  is  it  probable  that  an  empire 
can  rise  without  his  aid  ?  We  have  been  assured,  sir,  in  the  sacred  writings  that  *  except 
the  Lord  build  the  house,  they  labor  in  vain  that  build  it.'  I  iirmly  believe  this,  and 
I  also  believe  that  without  His  concurring  aid  we  shall  succeed  in  this  political  build- 
ing no  better  thnn  the  builders  of  Babel;  we  shall  be  divided  by  our  little,  partial, 

31 WH  481 


§  118.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

local  interests,  our  projects  will  be  confounded,  and  we  ourselves  shall  become  a  re- 
proach and  a  by-word  down  to  future  ages.  And,  what  is  worse,  mankind  may  here- 
after, from  this  unfortunate  instance,  despair  of  establishing  government  by  human 
wisdom,  and  leave  it  to  chance,  war,  and  conquest."  (9  Franklin  Papers,  Bigelow's 
ed.,  4-29.) 

Such  were  Fraukliu's  maturest  views  after  a  retrospect  of  the  revo- 
lutionary struggle  in  which  he  took  so  important  a  part.  And  it  may 
be  possible  to  join  the  utilitarian  basis  of  his  political  economy  with 
these  later  views  in  the  same  way  that  Paley  reconciled  his  theism  with 
his  utilitarianism,  "  Honesty  is  the  best  policy,  because  whatever  in 
the  long  run  succeeds  must  be  right,  while  the  misery  attending  wrong 
is  a  proof  that  it  is  a  violation  of  the  Divine  law."  Nor  can  it  be  main- 
tained that  Franklin  sacrificed  principle  to  what  was  temporarily  poli- 
tic. In  several  matters  he  pertinaciously  contended  for  what  he  con- 
sidered '*  right  principle  against  the  immediate  policy  of  the  United 
States.  He  strenuously  objected  to  privateering,  and  this  against  not 
merely  the  prevalent  sentiment,  but  the  unquestionable  policy  of  the 
United  States.  He  opposed  a  navigation  law,  at  a  time  when  the  tem- 
per of  the  people  of  the  United  States  was  roused  to  bitter  retaliation 
by  the  order  of  council  issued  by  the  coalition  ministry.  He  re- 
sisted the  Fox  scheme  of  recognition  of  independence  as  an  insulated 
act,  popular  as  that  scheme  was  in  the  United  States.  And  against 
the  tenor  of  home  advices  and  in  antagonism  to  France,  by  whose 
political  atmosphere  he  was  surrounded,  he  insisted  on  the  title  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Mississippi."  * 

In  a  letter  from  Franklin  to  Paine  (date  uncertain),  Paine's  skeptical  views  are 
vigorously  controverted,  and  it  is  said; 

"By  the  argument  it  contains  against  a  particular  Providence,  though  you  allow 
a  general  Providence,  you  strike  at  the  foundations  of  all  religion."  (9  Fraukliu 
Papers,  Bigelow's  ed.,  354.) 

Immense  business  clone  by        ^  ng,  Frankliu's   work  in  Paris  can  not  be 

him.  •" 

properly  estimated  without  considering  the  ad- 
ministrative forces  to  which  he  was  opposed.  Europe  was  the  center 
of  action;  it  was  in  Europe  that  funds  for  carrying  on  the  war  were  to 
be  raised ;  it  was  in  Europe  that  supplies  for  the  armies  of  the  United 
States  were  mainly  to  be  obtained ;  it  was  in  Europe  that,  in  view  of  the 
impossibility  of  prompt  communication  with  Congress,  the  diplomacy  of 
the  devolution  was  to  be  moulded ;  it  was  in  the  ports  of  France,  of 
Spain,  of  Holland,  that  American  privateers  were  fitted  out,  and  to 
them  that  they  brought  back  their  prizes;  it  was  in  Europe  that  all 
admiralty  questions  relative  to  the  United  States  were  to  be  deter- 
mined ;  it  was  in  Europe  also  that  the  naval  operations  of  these  pri- 
vateers were  to  be  planned  out.  It  was  by  Franklin  alone  t  hat  these  vari- 
ous functions  were  exercised.  When  we  examine  the  following  pages  we 
shall  find  that  on  his  arrival  in  Europe  until  at  least  the  treaty  of  peace  he 
coiid  ucted  almost  exclusively  the  financial  operations  of  the  United  States 

*  3  Dig.  Int.  Law,  2  ed.,  p.  921. 
482 


CHAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN.  [§118. 

in  Europe ;  that  tlirouj^h  him  alone  were  loans  obtained  and  to  his  hands 
alone  were  they  paid.  The  exhaustion  of  the  home  resources  of  Congress, 
which  became  complete  in  1781,  made  it  necessary  to  go  abroad  for  aid, 
and  it  soon  became  plain  that  from  France  alone  could  aid  come.  No  non- 
belligerent power  would  voluntarily  forfeit  the  great  commercial  ad- 
vantages of  neutrality  by  advancing  funds  to  America  when  such  sup- 
ply would  be  at  once  followed  by  a  declaration  of  war  by  Britain. 
Hence  it  was  on  Franklin  alone,  as  the  sole  American  minister  with 
whom  France  would  treat,  that  Congress  was  obliged  to  rely  for  pay- 
ment of  the  innumerable  bills  it  drew  on  Europe;  and  though  they  were 
directed  sometimes  to  Jay,  sometimes  to  Adams,  sometimes  to  Laurens, 
yet  on  Franklin,  and  through  him  on  France,  was  the  appeal  to  be  ulti- 
mately made.  Franklin,  therefore,  was  in  1781  and  1782  European 
fiscal  agent  of  Congress,  on  whom  it  was  obliged  almost  exclusively  to 
rely  for  funds.  In  addition  to  these  diplomatic  and  financial  functions, 
which  put  him  in  the  position  of  a  secretary  of  state  and  of  a  secretary 
of  the  treasury,  he  had  to  exercise  the  functions  of  a  secretary  of  war 
in  the  selection  and  forwarding  supplies,  of  a  secretary  of  the  navy  in 
supervising  the  fitting  out  and  regulation  of  privateers  numerous  enough 
to  scour  all  the  European  waters,  and  of  a  supreme  admiralty  judge  in 
determining  prize  questions  in  which  these  privateers  were  concerned 
and  in  adjusting  the  almost  innumerable  controversies  in  which  those 
concerned  in  these  i)rivateers  were  engaged.  *  And  it  was  on  Franklin 
alone  that  fell  the  enormous  labor  of  keeping  the  accounts  connected 
with  these  various  departments  of  administration. 

The  functions  thus  exercised  by  Franklin  were  of  the  same  general 
character  as  those  which  in  England  are  exercised  by  the  chancellor 
of  the  exchequer,  the  secretaries  for  foreign  affairs,  the  admiralty 
board,  the  war  secretaries,  and  the  courts  of  admiraltj'.  Each  of  these 
departments  of  the  British  ministry  was  at  that  time  furnished  not 
merely  with  competent  secretaries,  but  the  heads  of  departments  were 
in  the  habit  of  free  conference  with  associates  who  from  political  neces- 
sity were  their  political  friends.  But  Franklin's  own  secretary  was 
his  grandson,  who,  however  good  he  might  be  as  a  copyist,  could  not 
draft  a  paper.  And  during  a  part  of  the  period  in  which  he  was  bur- 
dened with  these  immense  responsibilities  he  had  with  him  colleagues 
who  were  ready  to  overrule  him  in  all  matters  that  were  in  their  power. 
Thus  in  1778  Arthur  Lee  and  Adams  removed  from  the  agency  at 
Nantes  Jonathan  Williams,  to  whose  eminent  public  services  and  great 
capacity  reference  will  be  hereafter  made,  t  and  put  at  the  head  of  that 
agency,  with  disastrous  consequences,  William  Lee,  with  a  younger  mem- 
ber of  the  Lee  family  as  associate.  This  action,  when  Franklin  found 
a  majority  was  against  him,  he  acquiesced  in  for  the  sake  of  peace;  and 

*  As  an  illustration  of  this  may  be  noticed  the  correspondence  in  the  index  under 
the  titles  Jones  and  Landais. 
ilnfra,  ^  186 ff. 

483 


§  110.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

SO  it  was  as  to  other  matters  which  his  colleagues  had  within  their 
power.  But  on  the  great  question  of  the  foreign  relations  of  the  United 
States,  it  made  no  matter  whether  he  was  alone  or  surrounded  by  un- 
friendly colleagues;  it  was  only  through  him  that  negotiations  could 
be  carried  on  with  France,  for  to  him  alone  could  the  French  Govern- 
ment commit  itself  with  the  consciousness  that  the  enormous  confl- 
deuces  reposed  in  him  would  be  honorably  guarded. 

Neither  indolent  uor  dissi-        ^  HQ.  Amoug  the  chargcs  addrcsscd  by  Arthur 

Lee  and  Izard  to  Congress,  as  given  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages,*  are  those  not  merely  of  idleness,  but  of  gross  dissipa- 
tion. Even  in  a  letter  of  December  7,  1778,  from  John  Adams  to 
Samuel  Adams,  then  a  leading  member  of  Congress,  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing: "I  know  also,  and  it  is  necessary  you  should  be  informed, 
that  he  is  overwhelmed  with  a  correspondence  from  all  quarters, 
mostly  on  trijiing  subjects ,  and  in  a  more  trifling  style;  and  with  unmean- 
ing visits  from  multitudes  of  people,  chiefly  from  the  vanity  of  having 
it  to  say  that  they  have  seen  him.  There  is  another  thing  which  I  am 
obliged  to  mention  j  there  are  so  many  private  families,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  that  he  visits  so  often,  and  they  are  so  fond  of  him,  that  he 
can  not  well  avoid  it,  and  so  much  intercourse  with  academicians,  that 
all  these  things  together  keep  his  mind  in  a  constant  state  of  dissipa- 
tion." f  If  Samuel  Adams,  whose  austere  soul  was  naturally  shocked 
by  such  a  narrative  as  the  above,  had  read  Franklin's  private  corre- 
spondence, as  we  are  now  able  to  do,  he  would  have  been  able  to  re- 
lieve himself  from  the  unfavorable  impressions  of  Franklin  which 
this  letter  produced,  since  there  is  no  public  man  whose  correspondence 
on  business  is  fuller  and  more  thorough  than  that  preserved  of  Frank- 
lin ;  nor  can  a  letter  written  by  him  on  matters  outside  of  business 
be  spoken  of  as  without  weight.  Franklin's  letter-book,  now  deposited 
in  the  Department  of  State,  not  only  contains  no  such  ''trifling"  let- 
ters, but  it  includes  a  mass  of  letters  so  pregnant,  so  elaborate,  so 
exact  on  matters  of  business — of  domestic  policy,  of  diplomacy,  of  ad- 
miralty, sometimes  of  physical  science  and  literature — as  to  exclude 
the  idea  that  there  could  have  been  another  set  of  letters  of  the 
"trifling"  type  issuing  from  the  same  pen.  There  can  be  no  question, 
also,  that  Adams  more  or  less  fully  received  as  true  the  charge  of  sexual 
immorality  made  against  Franklin  by  Arthur  Lee.  Yet  we  have  a 
right,  in  view  of  Franklin's  age,  the  maladies  under  which  he  was  suf- 
fering, the  immense  load  of  business  resting  on  him,  to  conclude  that 
this  charge  of  immorality  is  as  unfounded  as  the  charge  of  keeping  up 
a  •'  trifling"  correspondence.  It  so  happens  that  we  have  in  Stormonl's 
correspondence  with  Weymouth,  during  the  period  when  Stormont  and 
Franklin  were  in  Paris,  quite   an    accurate  statement  of  Franklin's 

*  See  index,  title  Arthur  Lee,  Izard,  Frankliu. 
1 1  Hale's  Frauklin  in  France,  *229;  9  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  467. 
484 


CHAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN  [§  1  19. 

evening^  eiigagemeuts  in  Paris.  Often  Franklin  dined  out;  on  Sunday 
he  always,  when  well,  bad  company  at  home.  But  there  were  certain 
secret  and  well-masked  engagements  to  account  for  which  much  puz- 
zled his  susincious  colleagues.  Stormont  reports  that  his  spies  pene- 
trated through  even  this  disguise,  and  that  the  evening  engagements 
to  which  so  much  mystery  had  been  attached  were '' assignations"  to 
meet  Yergennes  or  his  confidential  agents.*  Before  the  eyes  of  Arthur 
Lee  the  curtain  may  have  been  drawn  more  closely  from  the  fact  that 
the  distrust  felt  towards  him  by  the  French  Government  was  such  as 
to  make  them  unwilling  that  he  should  be  acquainted  with  their  secret 
plans.  As  to  the  charge  of  undue  conviviality,  we  may  remember 
Lord  Palmerston's  statement,  when  examined  before  a  committee  of  the 
House  of  Commons  on  dii^lomatic  exi)enses,  that  conversations  which 
end  in  beneficent  treaties  are  more  likely  to  be  begun,  and  i)rofessional 
or  national  acerbities  to  be  removed,  in  social  intercourse  than  in  any 
other  way.  And,  however  this  may  be,  so  far  from  undue  conviviality^ 
being  chargeable  on  Franklin,  there  can  be  no  question  that  he  did 
more  b^^  the  grace  and  benignity  of  his  manners,  his  freedom  from  ego- 
tism and  his  wonderful  skill  in  i)resenling  what  he  wanted  to  say  in  the 
most  homely  and  winning  shape,  when  these  gifts  were  exercised  in 
conversation,  than  he  could  have  done  if  he  had  exercised  them  ex- 
clusively in  writing. 

Artliur  Lee'8  reports  to  Congress  as  to  Franklin's  dissipated  habits  were  prob 
ably  based  ou  information  derived  by  Lim  from  Thornton,  his  private  secretary, 
a  British  spy,  one  of  whose  duties,  prescribed  by  his  British  j)rincipal8,  seems  to  have 
been  to  bear  to  Arthur  Leo  any  rumors,  trne  or  false,  which  might  tend  to  injure 
Franklin,  and  in  this  way  to  impair  Franklin's  inilnence. 

Among  the  papers  thus  given  by  Thornton  to  Arthur  Lee,  and  deposited  for  safe- 
keeping aiuong  the  Lee  papers  in  the  University  of  Virginia,  is  a  memorandum  of 
January  8,  1778,  marked  No.  120,  in  which  the  "  wife  of  Ogg,  Lord  Stormont's 
courier,"  is  quoted  as  having  given  a  not  very  decorous  construction  to  Franklin's 
evening  visits.  Yet  Lord  Stormont  himself,  as  we  elsewhere  have  seeu,t  reports  their 
visits  as  political,  not  social. 

Still  more  char.acteristic  is  the  following,  which  appears  among  the  Lee  papers  at 
Harvard  College : 

"  London,  May  7th,  1778. 

"  You  have  a  list  of  the  fleet  which  is  ordered  to  sail  the  11th  &  to  proceed  to  Amer- 
ica, those  ships  are  completely  maund.  1  got  the  names  &  the  day  of  their  sailing 
from  R.'s  Lady  ;  she  coud  not  tell  me  no  other  name  than  a  Madame  Lamberty,  who 
lives  in  Paris  &  an  intimate  of  Dr.  Franklin's  intimate— that  Lord  Stormond  had  got 
several  intelligence  from  her  while  the  treaty  was  in  agitation  &  had  had  several  of 
the  .articles  as  well  as  many  papers,  but  what  surprises  me  more,  she  told  me  of  the 
reason  you  were  so  soon  acknawledged  &  repeated  verbatim  what  Mr.  R.  had  told 
her.  she  has  brought  me  some  letters  directed  to  Mr.  R.  but  no  name — vizt  '  That 
Capt.  Jones  had  in  view  to  strike  a  stroke  against  the  Enemy  that  might  be  greatly 


*  Thus  "Gerard  goes  to  Passy  in  the  night,  and  Franklin  and  Deane  make  Vergennes 
nightly  visits  at  Versailles."  (Stormont  to  Weymouth,  Sparks  Papers,  Harvard 
College,  vol.  89.) 

i  Supra,  ^  119. 

485 


§  119.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [cHAP   X. 

to  their  Damniage,  but  in  its  nature  not  probably  profitable  to  his  Ships  Company, 
unless  some  reward  be  received  from  Congress  adequate  to  its  service.  That  in  cnsc 
that  the  good  and  gallant  behavior  of  the  people  under  his  Command  of  their  punc- 
tual obedience  to  his  orders  we  will  recommend  them  warmly  to  Congress  for  a  gen- 
erous gratification'  Signd  F.  D.  L.  'The  account  of  the  Cutter  sailing  with  Dis- 
patches' The  Convoy  France  has  granted  under  the  command  of  la  Motte  Pignet. 
The  quantity  of  arms  Cloathing  sent.  The  money  Spain  has  agreed  to  furnish  you 
thro  the  Havannah  this  year.  The  Count  de  Vergennes  letter  24  Augst  1777—  '  vos 
amis  ne  sont  ni  jnstes  ni  honetes'  &'',  ifc"— Su})plies  granted  by  France  from  Fcby 
1777  to  Octr  following  '2  millions  livres  Do  by  the  Farmers  Genls  to  be  repaid  in  to- 
bacco. 1  Do  Part  of  the  letter  dated  Passy  Deer  8th  1777  vizt  Their  grateful  ac- 
knowledgements to  the  King  of  France  from  the  additional  aid  of  3  millions  which 
he  has  been  graciously  pleased  to  procure  them  &  that  his  Majesty  may  be  assured 
what  ever  engagements  others  may  enter  into  in  behalf  of  the  U.  S.  in  pursuant  of 
the  full  x>ower8  vested  with  them  the  most  punctual  good  faith  by  the  Congress  &» 
&»  this  is  in  a  copy  of  a  memorial  she  shewd. 

"  She  also  shewd  me  a  letter  vizt  5  March  1778  the  Commissioners  have  requested 
that  the  treaty  might  be  made  public,  his  answer  the  great  uncertainty  of  its  being 
ratifyd  by  the  Congress  &  should  they  publish  it  in  Europe  &  it  shd  be  rejected  in 
America  it  woud  subject  France  to  infinite  Difficulties.  I  had  not  time  to  take  the 
full  copies,  she  has  promised  that  when  he  goes  to  the  Country  for  a  day  or  two,  that 
she  willsecreet  some  papers  &  then  I  shall  have  what  copies  I  pleased.  1  gave  her 
the  watch  &  have  promised  her  the  Pick  tooth  case  for  which  I  have  given  6  Guineas." 

Stormont's  correspondence  with  Weymouth  shows  that  the  above  statement  is  in- 
correct in  every  particular.  Stormont  did  not  have  any  of  the  articles  of  the  treaty 
in  his  hands  until  after  its  contents  were  disclosed  in  England  through  Fox's  state- 
ment in  the  House  of  Commons,  which  statement  was  made  under  Franklin's  advice 
by  friends  of  the  American  cause.  Stormont  also,  while  he  kept  spies  enough  about 
Franklin,  so  far  from  claiming  to  have  obtained  information  through  "Dr.  Frank- 
lin's intimate"  and  ''Mr.  R.'s  lady,"  states  that  while  he  has  had  all  Franklin's 
goings  out  and  comings  in  watched,  the  secret  meetings  held  by  Franklin  were,  as 
has  been  already  stated,  wdth  political  French  agents,  who  sought  such  interviews 
to  avoid  publicity.  But  the  letter  above  given  is  of  interest  as  showing  not  merely 
theeffort.s  of  the  British  Government  to  obtain  Franklin's  disgrace  at  home,  but  the 
intensity  of  the  monomania  which  impelled  Arthur  Lee  to  employ  his  own  secretary 
as  a  detective  to  effect  such  disgrace.  This  letter,  retained  by  Arthur  Lee  and  in- 
dorsed by  him  and  now  among  those  of  his  papers  deposited  at  Harvard  College,  is 
probably  the  ''proof"  referred  to  by  Arthur  Lee  in  one  of  the  letters  printed  in  the 
following  pages  of  Franklin's  subjection  to  unworthy  female  influence  and  of  his 
consequent  betrayal  of  state  secrets. 

Franklin's  mistake  was  bis  not  insisting  on  a  competent  secretary. 
He  was,  as  we  have  seen,  neither  indolent  nor  dissipated,  but  as  be 
grew  older  be  became  less  and  less  inclined  to  do  any  work  wbicb  was 
not  necessary,  or  permit  bimselt  to  be  agitated  by  difficulties  wbicb 
were  insurmountable.  His  fondness  for  bis  grandson  made  bim  ad- 
verse tobaving  tbe  latter's  place  occupied  by  a  secretary  of  experience 
and  ability,  wbo,  wbile  following  Franklin's  policy,  migbt  have  saved 
bim  from  much  friction,  and,  by  proper  and  prompt  explanations,  have 
very  much  lessened  tbe  opposition  of  those  wbo  thought  themselves 
neglected  by  tbe  great  diplomatist  himself.  This  want  of  a  secretary 
of  legation  wbo,  wbile  industrious  and  accomplished,  would  have  been 
loyal  to  Franklin,  was  tbe  great  defect  of  our  diplomatic  revolutionary 
486 


CHAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN.  [§  120 

s.ysteiii.  More  than  one  minister  at  Paris  we  did  not  need.  But  as 
Vergennes  maintained,  when  arguing  against  vesting  diplomatic  au- 
tiiority  in  a  board  of  three,  such  a  legation  as  that  of  the  United  States 
in  Paris  required  a  secretary  of  the  legation  to  carry  on  the  minister's 
work. 

His  success  as  a  diplomatist.         §  120.  "It  nuist  bc  remembered  that  to  him 

we  owe  two  treaties,  that  with  France  of  1778, 
and  with  Great  Britain  of  1782-'83,  whicli  are  at  once  the  most  bene- 
ficial and  the  most  widely  and  continuously  effective  of  any  which  are 
recorded  in  history ;  and  that  these  treaties  were  negotiated  by  him 
with  colleagues  at  his  side  who  at  least  gave  him  no  help,  and  with  no 
powerful  sovereign  to  back  him;  himself  a  plain  man,  with  no  dijdo- 
matic  training,  adopting  neither  in  conversation  nor  in  correspondence 
the  formulas  of  diplomatic  science.  Yet  nowhere  in  the  annals  of  diplo- 
macy do  we  find  documents  so  admirably  adapted  to  their  object,  in 
simplicity  and  power  of  style,  in  political  skill,  in  dexterity  and  force 
of  argument,  as  those  which  during  his  Paris  service  sprung  from  his 
pen ',  nowhere  such  extraordinary  results.  The  ablest  of  our  older 
negotiators,  next  to  Franklin,  was  Gallatin ;  yet  it  is  impossible  to  ex- 
amine Gallatin's  dispatches  during  the  negotiations  of  ]814-'15  and  of 
1818  without  seeing  how  far  he  falls  behind  Franklin,  at  least  in  result, 
if  not  in  style.  Conspicuous  di})lomatists  were  at  the  Congress  of 
Vienna— Talleyrand,  Metternich,  Castlereagh,  Nesselrode.  Yet  the 
treaties  they  drew  were  in  a  few  years  torn  to  tatters,  and,  when  they 
were  still  in  force,  were  conspicuous  chiefly  for  their  perfidious  denial 
to  the  peoples  of  Europe  of  liberties  their  sovereigns  had  previously 
pledged.  Canning  had  great  abilities  as  a  secretary  for  foreign  affairs, 
yet  in  his  boast  that  he  called  a  New  World  into  existence  to  restore  the 
equipoise  of  the  Old,  he  claimed  what  belonged  to  Franklin,  for  it  was 
Franklin  who,  in  obtaining  from  all  the  legitimate  sovereigns  of  Europe 
the  recognition  of  a  republic  in  the  New  World  which  had  revolted  from 
one  of  them,  made  it  possible  for  this  equipoise  to  be  restored.  But 
Franklin  did  more  than  this.  By  tiie  treaties  he  negotiated  with  France 
and  England  not  only  was  a  liberal  revolutionary  government  in  the 
New  World  for  the  first  time  sanctioned  by  the  legitimate  sovereigns  of 
Europe,  but  the  United  States,  with  boundaries  sufficient  to  make  a 
first-class  power,  was  able,  before  her  national  spirit  and  love  of  liberty 
had  been  subjected  to  the  strain  which  would  have  been  imposed  by  a 
further  continuance  of  war,  to  establish  a  government  both  free  and 
constitutional.  And  of  all  treaties  that  have  ever  been  negotiated, 
that  of  1782-'83  is  the  one,  as  we  have  seen,  which  has  produced  the 
greatest  blessings  to  both  contracting  parties,  has  been  of  the  greatest 
benefit  to  civilization  as  a  whole,  and  has  been  least  affected  by  the  flow 
of  time."* 

*  3  Dig.  Int.  Law,  2d  ed.,  919,  ff. 

487 


§§121,122.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE  [CHAP.  X. 

Hisliigh  reputation  promotive  S  121.    "It    WOUlcl     be      difficult,"     SaVS      Coilllt 

Segiir,*  "to  describe  the  eagerness  and  deligbt 
with  which  the  American  envoys,  the  agents  of  a  people  in  a  state  of 
insurrection  against  their  monarch,  were  received  in  France,  in  the 
bosom  of  an  ancient  monarchy.  Nothing  could  be  more  striking  than 
the  contrast  between  the  luxury  of  our  capital,  the  elegance  of  our 
fashions,  the  magnificence  of  Versailles,  the  still  brilliant  remains 
of  the  monarchical  pride  of  Louis  XIV,  and  the  polished  and  superb 
dignity  of  our  nobility,  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the 
almost  rustic  apparel,  the  plain  but  firm  demeanor,  the  free  and  direct 
language  of  the  envoys,  whose  antique  simplicity  of  dress  and  appear- 
ance seemed  to  have  introduced  within  our  walls,  in  the  midst  of  the 
efieminate  and  servile  refinement  of  the  eighteenth  century,  some  sages 
contemporary  with  Plato,  or  rei)ublicans  of  the  age  of  Cato  and  of 
Fabius.  This  unexpected  apparition  produced  upon  us  a  greater  effect 
in  consequence  of  its  novelty,  and  of  its  occurring  precisely  at  the 
])eriod  when  literature  and  philosophy  had  circulated  amongst  us  an 
unusual  desire  for  reforms,  a  disposition  to  encourage  innovations,  and 
the  seeds  of  an  ardent  attachment  to  liberty." 

Jefferson,  who  argued  that  it  spoilt  an  American  diplomatist  to  keep 
him  abroad  seven  years,  said  this  did  not  apply  to  Franklin,  who  was 
America  itself  when  in  France,  not  subjecting  himself  to  French  influ- 
ence, but  subjeciing  France  to  American  influence. 

Hia  conseq^ieiit^  influouce  in      §  122.  "  His  (Fraukliu's)  reputation,"  said  John 

Adams  at  the  time  when  Franklin's  French  duties 
were  beginning,  "was  more  universal  than  that  of  Leibnitz  or  Newton, 
Frederick  or  Voltaire,  and  his  character  more  beloved  and  esteemed 
than  any  or  all  of  them.  *  *  *  His  name  was  familiar  to  govern- 
ment and  people,  to  foreign  countries,  nobility,  clergy,  and  jihilosophers, 
as  well  as  plebeians  to  such  a  degree  that  there  was  scarcely  a  peasant 
or  a  citizen,  a  valet  de  chambre,  coachman  or  footman,  a  lady's  cham- 
bermaid or  a  scullion  in  a  kitchen,  who  was  not  familiar  with  it,  and  who 
did  not  consider  him  a  friend  to  humankind.  *  *  *  jf  a  collection 
could  be  made  of  all  the  gazettes  of  Europe  for  tlie  latter  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  a  greater  number  of  panegyrical  paragraphs  upon 
Je  grand  Franklin  would  appear,  it  is  believed,  than  upon  any  other 
man  that  ever  lived."  t 

In  a  letter  to  Franklin  of  July  17,  1780,  Jay  says:  ^'France,  I  know, 
has  already  done  great  things  for  us,  and  is  still  making  glorious  exer- 
tions. I  am  also  sensible  of  your  difficulties  and  respect  them,  though 
I  am  happy  in  reflecting  that  since  they  must  exist  they  have  fallen 
into  the  hands  of  one  whose  abilities  and  influence  will  enable  him  to 
sustain  them  at  a  court  which  does  not  appear  inclined  to  do  things  by 
halves."! 

*  2  Parton's  Franklin,  211.  1 1  John  Adams'  Works,  660. 

t  Franklin  Papers,  Department  of  State. 
488 


CHAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN.  [§122. 

"  Meanwhile,"  says  a  leading-  Fieiicli  historian,  "  the  other  glory  of 
America,  Frankliu,  had  quitted  his  country  (America)  in  order  the 
better  to  serve  it.  After  aiding  in  framing  the  immortal  Declaration  he 
had  set  out  to  gain  the  French  alliance.  *  *  *  The  United  States 
had  admirably  chosen  their  plenipotentiary.  Sprung  from  those  work- 
ing classes  brought  to  light  and  elevated  in  public  opinion  by  Diderot, 
not  a  Protestant  like  the  great  body  of  his  countrymen,  but  a  philosoi)hic 
Deist  of  an  intermediate  shade  between  Voltaire  and  Itousseau ;  a  phys 
icist  of  the  first  order  in  this  age,  so  much  enamored  with  the  natural 
sciences;  as  simple  in  his  manners  and  costume  as  Jean-Jacques  and 
his  heroes,  yet  the  wittiest  and  most  acute  of  men;  of  a  mind  wiiolly 
French  in  tone  and  grace;  a  marvellous  mixture  of  probity  and  ability, 
both  in  the  highest  degree;  at  once  the  great  man  of  antiquity  in  cer- 
tain aspects  and  pre-eminently  the  man  of  modern  times;  redeeming 
as  far  as  possible  what  he  lacked  in  ideality  by  that  excellent  moral 
equilibrium  which  he  had  in  common  with  Washington,  but  more  varied, 
more  comprehensive,  and  less  austere  than  the  latter,  he  was  ada})ted 
to  captivate,  as  he  captivated  the  France  of  the  eighteenth  century,  by 
all  his  sentiments  and  all  his  ideas.  He  won  the  wise  men  l)y  the  good 
sense  of  his  genius;  the  enthusiasts  by  the  brilliancy  of  his  role;  the 
frivolous  by  the  originality  of  his  position  and  appearance."* 

According  to  Parlon  t  the  sum  total  of  the  money  obtained  from 
France  at  the  solicitation  of  Franklin  was  twenty-six  millions  of  francs: 
in  1777,  two  millions ;  in  1778,  three  millions ;  in  1779,  one  million  ;  in 

1780,  four  millions;  in  1781,  ten  millions;  in  1782,  six  millions.  These 
aids  were  given  at  a  time  when  France  herself  was  at  war,  and  while 
the  minister  of  France,  M.  Necker,  constantly  opposed  the  grants,  t 
The  o.dy  one  of  the  American  envoys  in  Paris  in  whom  M.  de  Vergennes 
pur  any  confidence  was  Franklin. §  In  Vergennes'  letters  to  Congress, 
given  hereafter,  under  date  of  December  4,  1780,  and  February  14, 

1781,  he  in  the  strongest  language  attributes  to  Franklin  success  in 
his  negotiations  with  France  which  the  course  of  Arthur  Lee  and  Izard 
if  it  had  prevailed  would  have  made  impossible.]!  In  a  confidential 
letter  of  Vergennes  to  Luzerne,  of  February  15, 1784,  which  is  the  more 
significant  from  the  fact  that  it  was  not  meant  for  the  eye  of  Congress, 
we  have  the  following  : 

*'  We  think  that  Congress  has  acted  wisely  iu  recalling  most  of  its  agents  in  Europe ; 
their  character  is  too  little  conciliatory  and  their  heads  loo  much  excited  to  admit  of  tlieir 


*  2  Martin's  Decline  of  French  Monarchy,  379. 

t2  Parton's  Franklin,  391. 

t  See  to  same  effect  2  Martin's  Decline  of  French  Monarchy,  387  ;  4  Garden,  Histoire 
des  trai'ds  de  paix,  301,  387. 

^  Note  by  Mr.  Donne  to  Lord  North's  Correspondence  with  George  III,  2,  370. 

The  sensation  produced  by  Franklin's  arrival  in  Paris  is  described  with  great 
vivacity  and  circumstantiality  by  Doniol,  2.  99^. 

II 2  Parton's  Franklin,  391,  note. 

489 


§  123.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

being  useful  to  their  country.  The  calmness  and  the  2>rudence  of  Mr.  FranJdin  are  cer- 
tainly grave  faults  in  tlieir  eyes;  but  it  is  by  these  qualities  that  this  raiui^ter  has 
inspired  us  with  confidence.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  superior  services  which  this 
minister  has  rendered  to  his  country  will  be  requited ;  I  can  say  that  it  will  be  very 
difficult  for  Congress  to  replace  him."    (1  Bancroft's  History  of  the  Constitution,  341.) 

Feami  and  courted  in  Eng-       §  123.  Fraukliu,  as  a  political  power,  was  at  least 

as  liiglily  estimated  in  England  as  in  France.  In 
George  Ill's  correspondence  with  North  and  Shelbnrne.  Franklin  is 
repeatedly  spoken  of  as  the  one  authoritative  diplomatic  representative 
of  the  Revolution.  When  men  of  position  were  sent  from  London  to  Paris 
to  pave  the  way  for  peace,  the  question  was  who  would  be  acceptable 
to  Franklin,  and  for  this  purpose  men  of  high  character,  such  as  Hart- 
ley, Button,  Walpole,  and  Oswald,  were  selected;  and  it  is  creditable 
both  to  Franklin's  sagacity  and  to  his  integrit^^  that  only  men  of  this 
high  tone  were  sent  to  him.  Wedderburn's  attack  seems  even  to  have 
increased  the  reverence  with  which  Franklin  was  regarded  by  at  least 
a  large  portion  of  the  public.  ''  In  such  language  as  this  did  this  insolent 
lawyer  speak  of  the  profound  philosopher,  of  the  noble-hearted  patriot, 
of  the  delightful  social  companion,  of  the  tolerant  politician,  of  the  most 
illustrious,  next  to  Washington,  of  the  founders  of  the  great  American 
Eepublic,  of  the  *  new  Prometheus,'  who  in  the  words  of  the  beautiful 
modern  Latin  verse — 

"  'Eripuit  C03I0  fulmen,  sceptrumque  tyrannis.'"  * 

''  Of  all  the  celebrated  persons,"  said  Sir  Samuel  Romilly,  who  met 
Franklin  in  1783,  "  whom  in  ray  life  I  have  chanced  to  see.  Dr.  Frank- 
lin, both  from  his  appearance  and  his  conversation,  seemed  to  me  the 
most  remarkable.  His  venerable,  patriarchal  appearance,  the  simplicity 
of  his  manner  and  language,  and  the  novelty  of  his  observations,  at 
least  the  novelty  of  them  at  that  time  to  me,  impressed  me  with  an 
opinion  of  him  as  of  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  men  that  ever  ex- 
isted." t 

Of  Franklin's  status  in  England  Horace  Walpole's  letters,  after 
allowing  on  the  one  side  for  his  strong  whig  lies  and  on  the  other  side 
for  the  antagonism  of  his  character  and  tastes  to  those  of  Franklin, 
form  a  good  test. 

December  14,  1776. — "Dr.  Franklin,  at  seventy-two,  is  arrived  in  afrigate  at  Nantes, 
and  has  brought  in  two  prizes  that  he  took  in  his  way.  He  was  to  be  in  Paris  on 
Saturday  night.  He  left  everything  quiet  in  America  on  the  30th  of  October."  ((> 
Cunningham's  Walpole,  397.) 

*  1  Jesse's  Memoirs  of  George  III,  550  ;  to  same  effect  see  7  Cunningham's  Walpole,  97. 

The  feeling  of  bitterness  towards  Wedderburn  grew  in  intensity  as  the  war  went  on 
even  among  those  who  most  applauded  his  speech  when  it  was  delivered.  Even 
George  III  spoke  of  him  as  the  most  mischievous  villain  in  England. 

+  I  Romilly's  Life,  50. 

The  anxiety  felt  by  the  English  minister  on  Franklin's  arrival  is  well  illustrated  in 
2  Doniol,  102.     He  was  of  more  value  to  the  Americans,  so  it  was  said,  than  all  the 
privateers  they  had  sent  out. 
490 


CHAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN.  [§  123. 

December  20,  177(1. — "As  nearly  as  I  can  make  out,  Dr.  Frankliu  must  have  sailed 
a  day  or  two  after  Washington's  retreat,  and  therefore  it  is  natnral  to  eonelud«;  that 
ho  is  come  to  tell  France  that  she  nust  directly  interpose  and  protect  the  Americans, 
or  that  the  Americans  must  submit  to  such  terms  as  they  can  obtain."     {Td.,  398.) 

Jamiarjj  24,  1777. — "  It  does  not  appear  yet  that  Dr.  Franklin  has  persuaded  France 
to  espouse  America  openly."     {Id.,  407.) 

August  11,  1777. — "France  sits  by  and  laughs;  receives  our  remonstances,  sends  us 
an  ambassadress,  and  winks  on  Dr.  Frankliu.  That  is  all  the  comfort  she  will  give 
us."     {Id.,  4G7.) 

Dccemher  11,  1777. — "  Lord  North  yesterday  declared  he  should  during  the  recess 
iw^pnre  to  lay  before  the  Parliament  proposals  of  peace  to  be  offered  to  the  Americans. 
I  trust  wc  have  force  enough  to  hring  forward  an  accommodation.  These  were  his  very 
words.  *  *  *  Were  I  Franklin,  I  would  order  the  cabinet  council  to  come  to 
mo  at  Paris  with  ropes  about  their  necks  and  then  kick  them  back  to  St.  James." 
(7  Cunningham's  Walpole,  14.) 

Fehruarg  18,  1778. — "Who  can  believe  what  I  have  read  in  the  papers  to-day? 
That  one  Hutton,  a  Moravian,  has  been  dispatched  to  Paris  to  tiing  himself  at  Dr. 
Franklin's  feet  and  sue  for  forgiveness.  It  is  said  that  the  man  fell  on  the  doctor's 
neck  with  tears  and  implored  peace.  What  triumph  on  one  side!  What  humiliation 
on  the  other!  Will  princes  still  listen  to  those  vile  flatterers,  who  fascinate  them  with 
visions  of  empire  that  terminate  in  suchmortificatiou  ?  For  the  philosopher  replied, 
'It  is  too  late.'"     (M,  32.) 

March  10,  1778  — "  Dr.  Frankliu  boasts  that  Philadelphia  will  be  starved  into  a 
Burgoyneism."     (Id.,  40.) 

May  12,  1778. — "  Unless  sudden  inspiration  should  seize  the  whole  island  of  Britain 
and  make  it  with  one  voice  invite  Dr.  Franklin  to  come  over  and  new  model  the  gov- 
ernment, it  will  crumble  away  in  the  hands  that  still  hold  it."     (Id.,  65.) 

June  3,  1778. — "  France  is  very  glad  we  have  grown  such  fools,  and  soon  saw  that 
the  Presbyterian  Dr.  Franklin  had  more  sense  than  our  ministers  together."     (Id.,  76. ) 

Julg  18,  1778. — "  Dr.  Franklin,  thanks  to  Mr.  Wedderburn,  is  at  Paris.  Every  way 
I  turn  my  thoughts  the  returns  are  irksome.  What  is  the  history  of  a  fallen  em- 
pire?"    {Id.,'J7.) 

A2)rU  24,  1779. — "  LTnable  to  raise  the  sums  we  waut  for  the  war,  the  members  of 
that  Parliament  that  is  told  so  are  yet  occupied  in  preying  on  the  distresses  of  the 
government.  What  comments  must  Dr.  Franklin  make  on  every  newspaper  to  the 
French  ministers."     {Id.,  196.) 

June  IG,  1779. — "The  town  has  wound  uj)  the  season  perfectly  iu  character  by  a 
fete  at  the  Pantheon  bj'^  subscription.  *  *  *  There  is  another  person,  one  Dr. 
Frankliu,  who,  I  fancy,  is  not  sorry  that  we  divert  ourselves  so  well."     {Id.,  210.) 

AjJril  25,  1781. — "  Unfortunately,  Dr.  F,rankliu  was  a  truer  politician  (than  Dundas) 
when  he  said  he  would  furnish  Mr.  Gibbon  with  materials  for  writing  the  History  of 
the  Decline  of  the  British  Empire."     (8  Id.,  30. ) 

October  1,  1782. — "Have  you  seen  in  the  papers  the  excellent  letter  of  Paul  Jones 
to  Sir  Joseph  Yorke  ?  *  *  *  Dr.  Franklin  himself,  I  should  think,  was  the  author. 
It  is  certainly  written  by  a  first-rate  pen,  and  not  by  a  common  man  of  war."  {Id., 
286.) 

November  10,  1782. — "  Western  Europe  has  upon  the  whole  made  but  a  foolish  figure 
of  late  either  in  policy  or  arms.  We  have  flung  away  men,  money,  and  thirteen 
provinces.  France  has  been  spiteful,  to  gain  nothing  but  the  honor  of  mischief.  Spain 
has  been  bombastically  nnsuccessful,  and  Holland  has  betrayed  imbecility  in  every 
light.  Dr.  Franklin  may  laugh  at  us,  but  surely  he  can  not  reverence  his  allies."  (Id., 
305.) 

July  1,  1790. — "How  frantically  have  the  French  acted  and  how  rationally  the 
Americans.     But  Franklin  and  Washington  are  great  men."     (9  Id.,  247.) 

491 


§  124.J  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CIIAP.  X. 

Burke  also  paid  tribute  to  Frankliu  as  baviug  made  ''  such  astoiiisb- 
ing  exertions  in  the  cause  which  you  espouse,"  aud  as  deeply  versed  iu 
human  nature  and  human  morals,  and  as  ''the  philosopher,  the  friend, 
aud  the  lover  of  his  species."  * 

No  sovereign  in  Europe  was  watched  with  greater  interest  or  regarded 
as  wielding  a  more  supreme  authority  than  was  Franklin  by  English 
politicians  as  the  war  progressed.  There  was  scarcely  a  correspondent 
of  his  in  England  who  was  not  applied  to  by  the  ministry  to  sound  him 
as  to  the  terms  he  would  accept;  and  when  it  was  found  that  indepen- 
dence w^as  the  sine  qua  71071,  two  of  his  most  intimate  friends  were 
selected  to  arrange  with  him  tlie  treaty  of  peace. 

Syrapatiiies  as  between    ^  124.  '' Fraukliu's  Sympathies,  as  bctwccn  England 

FiaiiCG  aud  England.  -^  ^       jl  7  <=> 

and  France,  were  much  discussed  by  his  colleagues, 
and  have  been  much  discussed  subsequently.  Adams  and  Jay,  as  we 
will  see,  at  first  thought  he  was  ready  to  speak  too  deferentially  to 
England,  and  then  that  he  w^as  disposed  too  much  to  smooth  over  mat- 
ters witb  France.  The  truth  was  that  while  his  colleagues  were  ready 
to  say  rough  things  to  both  France  and  England,  he  was  ready  to  say 
rough  things  to  neither.  Aud  so  far  as  concerns  bis  personal  relations, 
his  past  is  to  be  considered.  He  undoubtedly  had  been  much  flattered 
in  France,  and  pleasantly  accepted  the  courtesies  which  were  part  of 
this  flattery.  But  this  flattery,  it  must  be  remembered,  came  not  from 
the  government  but  rather  irom  philosophical  illuminati  who  bad  no- 
thing in  common  with  the  government,  or  from  political  enthusiasts, 
like  La  Fayette,  who  took  up  the  American  cause,  not,  as  did  Vergennes, 
as  a  means  of  redress  for  injuries  inflicted  on  France  by  England,  but 
from  a  love  of  liberty  and  of  revolution,  which  Vergennes  abhorred. 
There  is  nothing,  in  fact,  iu  the  way  of  extraordinary  personal  compli- 
ment from  the  French  Government  to  Frankliu  to  be  found  among  his 
papers,  generous  as  was  the  aid  they  contributed  through  Ijini  to  his 
country.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  questionable  whether  there  is  an  in- 
stance in  history  of  homage  paid  to  the  emissary  of  revolted  and  still 
belligerent  subjects  such  as  that  paid  by  three  successive  British  ad- 
ministrations to  Franklin.  Fox,  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  sent  to 
biui  Grenville  with  a  letter  of  introduction  couched  in  terms  of  singu- 
lar conciliation.  Sbelburne  sent  to  him  Oswald,  on  the  ground  that 
Oswald  had  large  American  interests,  and  held  the  same  views  on  po 
litical  economy  as  Franklin;  while  Franklin  was  informed  that  the 
cabinet  was  agreed  that  if  another  negotiator  would  be  more  acceptable 
to  Franklin,  such  negotiator  should  be  sent.  When  Sbelburne  suc- 
ceeded Kockingham,  Oswald  was  continued  at  his  post,  with  letters 
from  Sbelburne  and  from  Thomas  Towushend  (who  followed  Sbelburne 
in  charge  of  the  Colonies)  expressive,  with  constantly  increasing  earn- 
estness, of  the  hope  that  Oswald  would  succeed  in  winning  Franklin's 

*  Infra,  $  197. 
492 


CHAP.  X.J  FRANKLIN.  [§  124. 

confidence.  And  when  the  coalition  ministry  came  in,  instead  of  upset- 
ting the  peace,  as  might  have  been  expected  from  the  fact  that  they 
mounted  into  power  by  repudiating  it,  tliey  sent  to  Paris  David  Hart- 
ley, an  intimate  friend  of  Franklin,  to  say  that  they  accepted  the  pre- 
liminaries as  the  terms  of  a  definite  peace,  intimating  that,  in  order  to 
assure  Franklin  of  their  sincerity,  they  had  given  i)lenipotentiary  pow- 
ers for  the  purpose  to  one  with  whom  he  was  known  to  have  been  asso- 
ciated by  the  tenderest  ties.  If  Franklin  retained  bitter  animosities 
towards  England  in  consequence  of  the  insults  heaped  on  him  by  Wed- 
derburn  in  the  privy  council,  or  of  the  vituperation  wliich  had  after- 
wards been  poured  on  him  by  the  Britisli  press,  certainly  time,  old  age, 
and  a  temper  on  his  part  naturally  benignant,  coupled  with  such  ex- 
traordinary attentions  from  ministries  representing  the  British  king, 
would  have  soothed  such  animosities. 

"But  it  can  not  be  said,  after  an  inspection  of  his  papers,  that  these  ani- 
mosities swayed  his  course.    He  undoubtedly  remembered  that,  not  many 
months  before,  Lord  Stormont,  British  minister  at  Paris,  had  said,  in 
reply  to  a  respectful  communication  from  the  American  commissioners, 
that  he  would  receive  from  rebels  no  communication  unless  in  terms  of 
surrender.     He  undoubtedly  also  remem bered  the  cruelties  by  which  the 
British  arms  in  America  had  been  stained  5  the  employment  of  Hessians 
in  a  mere  mercenary  warfare;  the  instigation  of  atrocious  Indian  on- 
slaughts.    He  could  not  have  forgotten  that  the  war  had  been  pro- 
tracted by  the  false  information  and  the  inflammatory  appeals  with 
which  the  refugees  in  England  had  filled  the  ears  of  those  in  power. 
He  could  not  have  forgotten  any  of  these  conditions,  yet  they  appear 
to  have  receded  from  his  eyes  with  the  single  exception  of  the  conduct 
of  the  refugees  as  a  class, — conduct  which  he  thought  disbarred  them 
from  any  claim  for  indemnity  from  the  United  States.     And  on  this 
topic  he  expressed  himself  with  far  more  tenderness  than  did  Jay,  who 
declared  that  some  at  least  of  the  refugees  'have  far  outstripped  sav- 
ages in  perfidy  and  cruelty,'*  and  who  in  such  cases  justified  confisca- 
tion, if  not  more  condign  punishment.     But  Franklin,  while  thus  look- 
ing on  the  refugees  as  among  the  main  causes  of  the  obstinacy  with 
which  the  war  was  persisted  in  and  as  continual  industrious  fomenters 
in  England  of  animosity  to  the  United  States,  found  nevertheless  in 
England  friends  not  only  the  most  cherished  but  most  sympathetic 
with  him  in  those  views  of  political  economy  he  held  to  so  tenaciously. 
And  with  all  his  just  gratitude  to  France,  there  is  no  doubt  that  in  1782 
he  looked  forward  to  a  permanent  alliance  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  as  affording,  when  based  on  sound  economical  prin- 
ciples, the  prospect  of  greater  benefit  to  the  United  States  and  to  man- 
kind in  general  than  would  be  such  an  alliance  with  any  other  power. 
If,  in  Franklin's  letters  subsequent  to  the  final  determination  of  the 
peace,  he  speaks  bitterly  of  probable  British  aggression,  it  must  be  re- 

*  1  Jay's  Life,  10'^. 

493 


§  125.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

membered  that  these  letters  were  written  after  the  defeat  of  Pitt's  rec- 
iprocity bill,  and  after  the  issue  by  Fox  and  North  of  the  order  in 
council  'shutting  oft' the  United  States  from  West  Indian  trade.'* 
On  this  question  Jefferson  thus  wrote: 

'*As  to  the  charge  of  subservience  to  France,  besides  the  evidence  of  his  friendly 
colleagues  before  named,  (Jay,  Deane,  and  Laurens,)  two  years  of  luy  own  service 
with  him  at  Paris,  daily  visits,  and  the  most  friendly  and  confidential  conversations 
convince  me  it  had  not  a  shadow  of  foundation.  He  possessed  the  confidence  of  that 
government  in  the  highest  degree,  insomuch  that  it  may  be  truly  said  that  they  were 
more  under  his  infiuence  than  he  was  under  theirs.  The  fact  is,  that  his  temper  was 
so  amiable  and  conciliatory,  his  conduct  so  rational,  never  urging  impossibilities  or 
even  things  unreasonably  inconvenient  to  them,  in  short,  so  moderate  and  attentive 
to  their  difficulties  as  well  as  our  own,  that  what  his  enemies  called  subserviency  I 
saw  as  only  that  reasonable  disposition  which,  sensible  that  advantages  are  not  all 
to  be  on  one  side,  yielding  what  is  just  and  liberal,  is  the  more  certain  of  obtaining 
liberality  and  justice.  Mutual  confidence  produces,  of  course,  mutual  influence,  and 
was  all  which  subsisted  between  Dr.  Franklin  and  the  Government  of  France."  (7 
Jefferson's  Works,  109.) 

His  reiauons^to^chaumont        §125.  Douaticn  Le  Ray  de  Ohaumont,  as  we 

are  told  by  Mr.  John  Bigelow  in  an  interesting 
sketch  in  the  Century  Magazine  for  March,  1888,  a  house  on  whose 
estate  at  Passy  was  occupied  by  Erankiin  when  in  France,  was  at  the 
time  a  gentleman  of  fortune,  holding  honorable  offices  under  the  French 
Government,  and  bearing  to  it  confidential  relations.  Franklin  was  to 
pay  nothing  for  the  house  in  the  way  of  rent,  but  it  was  said  by  Ohau- 
mont that  he  meant  to  accept  a  grant  of  land  from  the  republic  when 
it  was  established.  It  was  not  without  hesitation  that  Franklin  accepted, 
on  terms  amounting  to  a  gift,  a  residence  so  spacious  and  so  elegant, 
which  had  the  additional  advantages  of  taking  him  out  of  the  continu- 
ous supervision  of  British  spies  and  the  occasional  intrusion  of  cosmo- 
politan tourists.  The  probable  inference  is  that  the  French  ministry 
stood  behind  Ohaumont  in  making  the  lease,  and  that  Ohaumont  was 
simply  the  nominal  party. 

Beaumarchais  was  the  nominal  party  by  whom  supplies  were  pre- 
sented to  America.  It  was  important  for  France  that  Franklin  should 
have  a  commodious  residence,  in  some  respects  out  of  the  reach  of  un- 
friendly inspection;  and  this  residence,  as  a  sort  of  diplomatic  immu- 
nity, France  supplied.  Of  course  this  was  not  to  be  a  public  matter,  so 
as  to  be  the  subject  of  British  complaint;  but  the  want  of  publicity  is 
entirely  consistent  with  the  hypothesis  that  the  government  was  the 
landlord.  And  it  is  to  be  observed  that  after  1779  Franklin  never  refers 
to  Ohaumont  as  the  party  to  whom  he  was  indebted  for  the  house.  So 
far  from  this,  his  letters  after  that  date  speak  of  Ohaumont  as  of  a 
person  of  whom  in  business  matters  he  was  entirely  independent: 

*'  1  find  that  in  these  affairs  with  him  (Ohaumont)  a  bargain,  though  ever  so  clearly 
expressed,  signifies  nothing.     One  is  no  sooner  engaged  by  a  tempting  proposition  but 

^  3  Dig.  Int.  Law,  2d  ed.,  dlbff. 

494 


CHAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN.  [§  126. 

changes  begin  to  be  proposed  in  tlio  terms,  and  these  follow  one  after  another  till  one 
is  quite  bewildered."  (Franklin  to  Williams,  Jan.  15,  1781 ;  Franklin's  letter- 
book.) 

On  Jiinuary  20, 1781,  lie  speaks  to  Williams  of  Cluiumont's  desperate 
iusolvency;  and  on  January  22,  1781,  he  writes  as  follows: 

"On  the  whole,  I  hope  the  destruction  of  his  (Chaumout's)  credit  will  do  him  no 
harm;  it  may  prevent  his  excessively  numerous  and  hazardous  adventures;  and  if 
his  estate  be  as  it  is  represented,  he  can  sit  down  upon  it  and  live  without  trading." 

For  one  sovereign  to  assign  a  residence  to  the  representative  of  an- 
other is  not  unusual ;  and  so  far  from  such  an  assignment  in  the  pres- 
ent case  being  humiliating,  it  was,  supposing  it  to  be  in  any  shape 
from  the  government,  one  of  the  most  delicate  and  generous  ways  in 
which  the  ministry,  without  breach  of  neutrality,  could  give  prudent 
aid  to  the  republic.  And  then  there  was  no  question  that,  even  put- 
ting this  action  of  the  government  out  of  sight,  to  Ghaumont,  a  man 
then  of  wealth,  a  '^  philosopher,"  fond  of  social  distinction,  desirous  of 
l)leasing  the  court,  the  having  Franklin,  the  idol  of  society,  the  object 
of  deep  court  interest,  as  a  gue.^t  and  a  close  neighbor,  was,  for  the 
nine  years'  residence  of  Franklin,  the  source  of  infinite  delight.  And 
it  was  from  Passy  that,  during  these  nine  eventful  years,  Franklin's 
diplomatic  papers,  which  determined  the  fate  of  two  continents,  were 
dated;  it  was  there  tbat  his  liberal  hospitality  was  dispensed;  it  was 
there,  according  to  Mr.  Bigelow,  that  the  first  lightning  rod  was  put  up ; 
it  was  there  that  were  held  conferences  with  statesmen  and  philosophers, 
for  whose  results  the  world  of  science  as  well  as  the  world  of  politics 
watched  with  eager  interest. 

Of  the  house  assigned  to  Franklin  Mr.  Bigelow  thus  speaks: 

''The  property,  of  which  the  house  occupied  by  Franklin  was  only  a  depcndance, 
and  which  M.  de  Chaumont  had  then  owned  but  a  few  months,  had  at  one  time  be- 
longed to  the  Duchesse  de  Valentinois,  and  was  still  known  as  the  Hotel  Valentinois. 
On  this  considerable  estate  were  two  dwellings,  one  known  and  described  in  the 
conveyances  as  le  grand  and  the  other  as  le petit  hotel.  The  larger  was  occupied  by 
M.  de  Chaumont,  and  the  smaller  was  for  the  remainder  of  his  sojourn  in  France  the 
residence  of  Franklin." 

And  of  the  immediate  neighborhood: 

"The  quarter  of  Passy  where  Franklin  took  up  his  abode  ranked  in  those  days 
among  the  most  attractive  in  the  environs  of  Paris,  and  is  far  from  owing  all  its 
interest,  in  the  eyes  even  of  American  readers,  to  its  having  been  for  so  many  years  the 
residence  of  their  first  diplomatic  representative.  It  was  the  residence  of  the 
Marquis  de  Pontainvilliers,  the  Prevost  of  Paris  and  Lord  of  Passy  ;  of  the  illustrious 
and  unfortunate  Princesse  de  Lamballe,  whose  chateau  was  still  standing  under  the 
Second  Empire:  and  of  the  Marshal  d'Estaing,  whose  name  is  so  honorably  associ- 
ated with  our  Revolution.  Then  at  Auteui),  adjoining  Passy,  was  the  residence  of 
Madame  Helvetius,  whoso  house  was  the  resort  of  all  the  political  celebrities  of 
France,  and  to  whom,  because  of  the  judicious  patronage  she  extended  to  people  of 
letters,  Franklin  gave  the  name  of  Notre  Dame  d'Auteuil.  To  this  circle  no  person 
seems  to  have  been  admitted  upon  a  more  intimate  footing  than  Franklin.  There 
was  even  a  tradition  that  he  had  offered  himself  to  her  in  marriage.  Of  this,  how- 
ever, there  is  no  evidence,  nor  even  probability.  It  was  the  most  attractive  salon 
in  Paris;  one  to  which  Napoleon  on  his  return  from  Italy  sought,  but  unsuccessfully, 

495 


§  125.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

to  secure  admission.  Wc  need  look  no  fnriher  for  an  explanation  of  Franklin's  devo- 
tion to  its  presiding  genius.  If  anything  were  yet  wanting  to  make  Passy  fashionable 
it  was  to  be  found  in  the  royal  chateau  of  La  Muette,  which  was  a  favorite  resort  of 
the  king.  It  was  from  here  that  he  dated  the  popular  edict  which  suppressed  the 
Doti  dc  joyenx  Aveiiement.  At  La  Muette  was  a  laboratory  constructed  by  Louis 
XV  and  enlarged  by  his  successor,  Franklin  was  often  there  with  his  friends  Le  Roy 
and  the  Abbd  la  Roche,  both  members  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences,  prosecuting  his 
experiments  in  electricity,  on  the  weight  of  the  atmosphere,  etc.  Passy  was  also 
endowed  by  nature  with  a  mineral  spring  renowned  in  those  days  for  its  medicinal 
properties,  and  which  served  as  another  veil  to  Franklin's  real  purpose — he  being 
something  of  an  invalid — in  accepting  the  hospitalities  of  M.  de  Chaumont.  This 
spring  was  the  property  of  a  M.  le  Veillard,  first  mayor  of  Passy,  with  whom  Dr. 
Franklin  contracted  a  great  intimacy  and  life-long  friendship." 

"Franklin's  life  here  [at  Passy]  seemed  to  some  of  the  American  travelers  too  lux- 
urious ;  but  the  French  criticism  was  not  so  severe.  'To  luxury  [ns  had  marked  the 
chateau  in  old  times]  there  succeeded  modesty,  and  to  all  the  extravagance  of  vice 
the  most  frugal  simplicity.  The  minister  was  usually  dressed  in  a  coat  of  chestnut- 
colored  cloth,  without  any  embroidery.  He  wore  his  hair  without  dressing  it,  used 
large  spectacles,  and  carried  in  his  hand  a  white  staff  of  crab  apple  stock.  Whoever 
saw  him  would  not  have  thought  him  to  be  an  ambassador,  but  a  peasant  of  distin- 
guished appearance.'  With  reference  to  this  remark,  which  appears  in  more  than  one 
French  author  of  that  and  of  succeeding  times,  it  is  to  be  said  that  Franklin  knew 
as  well  as  any  man  when  full-dress  was  required,  and  was  as  unwilling  as  any  man 
to  undervalue  social  restrictions."     (2  Hale's  Franklin  in  France,  2.) 

From  what  we  have  seen  of  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Arthur  Lee  it  can 
be  readily  understood  that  they  were  not  likely  to  exercise  that  fasci- 
nation over  Chaumont  which  Franklin  exercised,  nor  would  they  have 
by  their  celebrity  added  to  the  social  distinction  by  which  Chaumont 
was  attracted,  nor  would  they  have  contributed  by  their  tact  and  grace- 
fulness to  the  comfort  of  a  common  establishment.  It  was  never  sug- 
gested that  Franklin  did  not  do  his  best  to  make  his  colleagues  at  ease 
in  the  spacious  establishment  at  the  head  of  which  he  was  placed. 
But  John  Adams,  feeling  that  the  courtesy  came  to  him  through 
Franklin,  and  that  he  had  no  personal  claims  on  Chaumont,  wrote  to 
Chaumont  on  September  IG,  1778,  a  letter,  apparently  speaking  for  him- 
self and  his  associates,  in  which  he  told  Chaumont  that  they  were 
unwilling  to  be  indebted  to  him  without  knowing  on  what  terms  the 
debt  was  to  be.    The  letter  closed  as  follows : 

''As  you  have  an  account  against  the  commissioners,  or  against  the  United  States, 

for  several  other  matters,  I  should  be  obliged  fo  you  if  you  would  send  it  in  as  soon 

as  possible,  as  every  day  makes  it  more  and  more  necessary  for  us  to  look  into  our 

affairs  with  the  utmost  precision. 

"  I  am,  sir,  with  much  esteem  and  respect,  etc., 

''John  Adams." 

Chaumont's  reply  was  as  follows: 

"  Passy,  Septemler  18,  1778. 

"  Sir  :  I  have  received  the  letter  which  you  did  me  the  honor  to  write  to  me  on  the 
16th  inst.,  making  inquiry  as  to  the  rent  of  my  house  in  which  you  live  for  the  past 
and  the  future.  When  I  consecrated  my  house  to  the  use  of  Dr.  Franklin  and  his 
associates  who  might  share  it  with  him,  I  made  it  fully  understood  that  I  should 
expect  no  compensation,  because  I  perceived  that  you  had  need  of  all  your  means  to 
Send  to  the  succor  of  your  country,  or  to  relieve  the  distresses  of  your  countrymen 

49G 


CHAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN.  [§  125. 

escaping  from  tliechaius  of  your  enemies.  I  i>ray  you,  sir,  to  permit  this  arrangement 
to  remain,  which  1  made  when  the  fate  of  your  country  was  doubtful.  When  she 
shall  enjoy  all  her  splendor,  such  sacrifices  on  my  part  will  be  superlluous  or  un- 
worthy of  her;  but  at  present  they  may  be  useful,  and  I  am  happy  in  offering  them 
to  you. 

"There  is  no  occasion  for  strangers  to  be  informed  of  my  proceedings  in  this 
respect.  It  is  so  much  the  worse  for  those  who  would  not  do  the  same  if  they  had  the 
opportunity,  and  so  much  the  better  for  me  to  have  immortalized  my  house  by 
receiving  into  it  Dr.  Franklin  and  his  associates." 

'^  There  is  no  doubt,"  says  Mr.  Bigelow,  coinmeiiting  on  the  above, 
''  that  Mr.  Adains^  mind  had  been  poisoned  by  his  colleague,  Arthur 
Lee,  or  he  would  never  have  written  the  letter  of  the  IGth  of  September, 
which  was  more  or  less  of  a  reflection  upon  his  senior  colleague,  the 
practical  head  of  the  commission.  However,  he  seems  to  have  been  en- 
tirely satisfied  with  the  result,  as  all  his  subsequent  relations  with  M. 
de  Chaumont  and  his  family  abundantly  testify.  Not  so,  however, 
Arthur  Lee.  He  was  a  sort  of  stormy  petrel,  only  content  in  foul 
weather,  and  his  determinatiou  to  produce  bad  blood  between  Adams 
and  Franklin  was  not  abandoned." 

Chaumont,  as  we  learn  from  the  following  correspondence,  was  active 
in  forwarding  supplies  to  the  United  States  with  the  understanding 
that  there  was  to  be  no  payment  unless  independence  was  achieved. 
He  was  concerned  in  the  naval  operations  of  John  Paul  Jones ;  he  sent 
clothing  in  large  quantities  to  La  Fayette  for  distribution ;  he  took  part 
in  a  large  shipment  of  powder  to  ihe  United  States  at  a  time  when 
powder  was  almost  unattainable  by  the  Continental  troops. 

That  Chaumont^s  kindly  feelings  to  Adams  were  not  impaired  by 
Adams'  action  in  September,  1778,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  early  in 
1770,  Adams  still  continuing  to  live  under  the  roof  of  Franklin  at  Passy, 
Chaumont  offered  to  Adams,  who  then  was  talking  of  his  desire  for 
country  life,  the  use  of  a  villa  at  Blessois.  To  this  offer  Adams,  made 
the  following  reply,  as  given  by  Mr.  Bigelow : 

To  M.  Le  Ray  de  Chaumont. 

"  Passy,  February  25,  1779. 

"Sir:  I  have  this  moment  the  honor  of  your  kind  billet  of  this  day's  date,  and  I 
feei  myself  under  great  obligations  fur  the  genteel  and  generous  offer  of  your  house 
at  Blessois;  but  if  I  do  not  put  Dr.  Franklin  to  inconvenience,  which  I  shall  not  do 
long,  my  residence  at  Passy  is  very  agreeable  to  me. 

''To  a  mind  as  much  addicted  to  retirement  as  mine  the  situation  you  propose 
would  be  delicious  indeed,  provided  my  country  were  at  peace  and  my  family  with 
me;  but,  separated  from  my  family  and  with  an  heart  bleeding  with  the  wounds  of 
its  country,  I  should  be  the  most  miserable  being  on  earth  in  retreat  and  idleness. 
To  America,  therefore,  in  all  events  and  at  all  hazards,  I  must  attempt  to  go,  pro- 
vided 1  do  not  receive  counter  orders  which  I  can  execute  with  honor  and  with  some 
prospect  of  advantage  to  the  i)ublic  service. 

"I  thank  you,  sir,  and  your  agreeable  family  for  all  your  civilities  since  my  arrival 
at  Passy,  and  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect, 
"  Your  most  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

''John  Adams." 

32  WH  497 


§  126.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

In  the  following  pages  reference  is  made  to  the  relations  of  Ghaumont 
to  Paul  Jones.  By  Chanmout  Paul  Jones'  outfit  was  in  a  large  meas- 
ure prepared,  and  though,  as  the  papers  show,  they  came  frequently  in 
conflict,  yet  Jones  at  the  end  acknowledged  that  Ghaumont  had  en- 
deavored to  do  justice  to  him  in  the  very  difficult  situation  in  which  they 
were  placed. 

However  meritorious  may  have  been  Ghaumont's  claims  for  advances 
to  the  United  States,  they  took  their  place  among  other  claims,  imper- 
fectly vouched,  which  the  Gonfederacy  after  peace  found  itself  unable 
to  pay. 

Large  tracts  of  land  in  the  State  of  Kew  York  were  purchased  shortly 
after  the  war  closed  by  Ghaumont  for  himself  and  his  friends.  But 
the  lands  were  badly  situated,  and  the  speculation  ended  in  an  insolv- 
ent assignment  under  circumstances  which  are  detailed  by  Mr.  Bigelow 
in  the  article  above  cited. 

Keirttions  to  his  colleagues.        §  126.  FraukUn's  relations  to  Adams,  to  Arthur 

and  William  Lee,  and  Izard  are  elsewhere  specitic- 

ally  discussed,  and  have  already  been  incidentally  noticed.*   With  Deane 

he  did  but  little  in  the  way  of  concert.     As  soon  as  Franklin  became 

familiar  with  his  duties  he  assumed  the  entire  management  of  the  lega 

tion,  Deane  only  taking  charge  of  unfinished  business  and  of  matters 

of  detail.     With  Jefi'erson,  after  his  arrival,  Franklin  was  on  terms  of 

afi'ectionate  intimacy.     But  the  period  when  they  were  together  was  a 

IDcriod  of  repose,  apparently  all  the  more  profound  from  its  contrast 

with  the  tension  and  conflict  by  which  it  had  been  preceded.    As  to 

the  position  of  his  other  colleagues  we  must  keep  in  mind  the  following 

suggestions  by  Sparks : 

"His  great  fame  aiul  extraordinary  character  gained  him  much  admiration  and 
notice  in  France,  and  placed  him  in  a  sphere  above  his  colleagues.  As  their  powers 
in  office  were  equal  with  his,  it  was  natural  that  they  should  be  annoyed  by  this 
marked  distinction  shown  to  him,  particularly  when  taken  in  connection  with  his 
usual  manners  to  them,  which  were  evidently  not  the  most  conciliatorj'^  or  courteous. 
He  seemed  willing  to  enjoy  the  meed  of  his  fame  without  giving  himself  much  trouble 
or  concern  about  the  social  rank  or  public  estimation  of  his  associates.  This  may  be 
accounted  for  in  some  sort  by  his  advanced  age  and  bodily  infirmities,  his  habits  of 
reserve  in  conversation,  and  his  cold  and  cautious  temperament."  (North  American 
Review,  April,  1830,  vol.  30,  p.  507.) 

We  must,  on  the  other  hand,  remember  that  when  overruled  by  his 
colleagues  he  submitted  with  a  tranquillity  which  relieved  bim  from  all 
suspicion  of  factious  opposition.  Thus  by  Adams  and  Arthur  Lee  he 
was  outvoted,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  substitution  for  Williams  of 
William  Lee,  in  whose  employment  was  Ludwell  Lee,  in  the  business 
agency  at  Nantes ;  and  although  he  had  reason  to  believe,  as  afterwards 
turned  out  to  be  the  case,  that  the  change  would  act  badly,  yet,  feeling 
that  an  exi^osure  of  disagreement  might  be  more  dangerous  to  the 

*  See  supra,  ^15  ff.;  infra,  §  149, 
498 


CHAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN.  [§  126. 

country  tbau  would  be  a  fruitless  opposition  on  his  part,  he  acquiesced. 
For  the  same  reason  he  acquiesced  in  the  action  of  Adams  and  Jay  in 
withholding'  from  France  formal  notice  of  the  peace  negotiations  pend- 
ing with  Britain  in  1782.  Yet,  though  from  time  to  time  overruled,  his 
influence,  even  when  in  a  minority,  was  necessarily  supreme.  In  him 
alone,  among  the  several  American  envoys  at  Paris,  did  the  French 
ministry  put  full  confldence;  and  France,  until  almost  the  close  of  the 
Kevolution,  was  the  only  European  sovereignty  by  whom  our  national 
existence  was  recognized.  And  here  may  be  studied  the  following 
striking  remarks  by  Edward  Everett: 

"The  alliance  (with  France)  saved  the  United  States;  hnt  how  hardly  was  the  alli- 
ance itself  formed,  and  how  often  did  it  seem  impossible  to  realize  its  fruits!  The 
rarest  conjuncture  of  persons  and  things  was  requisite  and  did  in  fact  exist,  but  ac- 
companied at  the  same  time  by  other  agents  so  ill  qualified,  and  other  events  so  un- 
toward, that  it  would  seem  as  if  the  good  and  evil  genius  of  America  had  each  his 
alternate  day  assigned  him  in  controlling  the  march  of  things."  (33  North  American 
Review,  450,) 

In  following  sections  will  be  considered  Franklin's  relations  to  Arthur 
Lee  and  to  Jay.* 

On  December  4,  18 18,  Jefferson,  then  in  extreme  old  age,  thus  wrote 
to  Walsh : 

''Dr.  Franklin  had  many  political  enemies,  as  every  character  must  which,  with 
decision  enough  to  have  opinions,  has  energy  and  talent  enough  to  give  them  effect 
on  the  feelings  of  the  adversary  opinion.  These  enmities  were  chiefly  in  Pennsylva- 
nia and  Massachusetts.  In  the  former  they  were  merely  of  the  proprietary  party.  In 
the  latter  they  did  not  commence  till  the  Revolution,  and  then  sprung  chiefly  from 
personal  animosities,  which,  spreading  by  little  and  little,  became  at  length  of  some 
extent.  Dr,  Lee  was  his  principal  calumniator,  a  man  of  much  malignity,  who. 
besides  enlisting  his  whole  family  in  the  same  hostility,  was  enabled,  as  the  agent  of 
Massachusetts  with  the  British  Government,  to  infuse  it  into  that  State  with  consid- 
erable effect.  Mr.  Izard,  the  doctor's  enemy  also,  but  from  a  pecuniary  transaction, 
never  countenanced  these  charges  against  him,  Mr.  Jay,  Silas  Deane,  Mr.  Laurens, 
his  colleagues  also,  ever  maintained  towards  him  unlimited  confidence  and  respect. 
That  he  would  have  waived  the  formal  recognition  of  our  independence  I  never  heard 
on  any  authority  worthy  of  notice."     (7  Jefferson's  Works,  108.) 

The  leading  point  of  difference  between  Franklin  on  the  one  side, 
and  Adams  and  Jay  on  the  other  side,  was  as  to  the  binding  character  of 
the  treaty  and  of  the  instructions  of  Congress,  requiring  them  as  peace 
commissioners  to  negotiate  in  unison  with  France.  It  has  been  already 
seen  that  such  stipulations  are  common  in  all  alliances  for  war,t  and 
that  Franklin's  views  in  this  respect  were  in  harmony  with  those  of 
Congress,  as  expressed  by  Livingston,  by  Hamilton,  and  by  Madison. 

The  letter  of  Arthur  Lee  of  January  29,  1778,  in  which  he  proposes 
that  he  be  made  sole  minister  at  Paris,  Deane  sent  to  Holland,  Frank- 
lin to  Vienna,  and  Jennings  to  Madrid,  is  in  the  collection  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Virginia. 

*lM/m,  ^  149,  158.  iSiqjra,  ^  4,  109  #. 

499 


§  127.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

On  October  15,  1778,  William  Lee,  in  a  letter  iu  the  Harvard  College 
Collection,  thus  writes  to  Richard  H.  Lee : 

"  I  have  never  yet  asked  anything  from  Congress,  hut  when  they  do  send  a  com- 
missioner to  Holland  I  profess,  as  my  former  line  of  life  has  heen  changed,  I  should 
not  dislike  that  appointment,  and  I  think  if  any  change  takes  place  in  my  present 
department  there  is  no  person  so  proper  as  Dr.  Franklin  to  he  sent  to  Vienna."  ^ 

Arthur  Lee  therefore  was  to  stay  in  Paris,  William  Lee  to  go  to  Hol- 
land, and  Franklin,  whom  they  both  spoke  of  as  traitorous  and  wicked, 
was  to  be  sent  to  Vienna,  which  Arthur  Lee  declared  to  be  the  most 
distinguished  diplomatic  post  in  Europe.* 

Relations  to  his  family.  §  127.  Of  Franklin's  relations  to  his  grandson, 

who  acted  as  his  private  secretary,  several  inci- 
dental notices  have  been  given.  Of  his  relations  to  his  son  the  follow- 
ing summary,  which  bears  on  the  political  position  of  the  two,  deserves 
consideration : 

**  In  1784  the  father  and  son,  after  an  estrangement  often  years,  hecame  reconciled  to 
one  another.  The  son  appears  to  have  made  the  first  overture.  Dr.  Franklin,  in 
acknowledging  the  receipt  of  his  letter,  says  in  reply,  on  the  16th  of  August  of  that 
year :  '  I  am  glad  to  find  that  you  desire  to  revive  the  affectionate  intercourse  that 
formerly  existed  between  us.  It  will  be  very  agreeable  to  me;  indeed  nothing  has 
ever  hurt  me  so  much  and  affected  me  with  such  keen  sensations  as  to  find  myself 
deserted  iu  my  old  age  by  my  only  son ;  and  not  only  deserted,  but  to  find  him  taking 
up  arms  against  me  in  a  cause  wherein  my  good  fame,  fortune,  and  life  were  all  at 
stake.  You  conceived,  you  say,  that  your  duty  to  your  kiug  and  regard  for  your 
country  required  this.  I  ought  not  to  blame  you  for  difibring  in  sentiment  with  me  in 
public  alFairs.  We  are  all  men  subject  to  errors,  our  opinions  are  not  in  our  power; 
they  are  formed  and  governed  much  by  circumstances  that  are  often  as  inexplicable 
as  they  are  irresistible.  Your  situation  was  such  that  few  would  have  censured  your 
remaining  neuter,  though  there  are  natural  duties  which  precede  political  ones,  and 
cannot  be  extinguished  by  them.  This  is  a  disagreeable  subject ;  I  drop  it,  and  we  will 
endeavor,  as  you  propose,  mutually  to  forget  what  has  happened  relating  to  it,  as  well 
as  we  can.'  * 

"  The  doctor,  I  conclude,  was  neverable  to  forget  entirely  the  alienation  which  had 
happened  between  them.  In  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Byles  (1788)  he  said:  'I,  too, 
have  a  daughter  who  lives  with  me,  and  is  the  comfort  of  my  declining  years,  while 
my  son  is  estranged  from  me  by  the  part  he  took  in  the  late  war  and  keeps  aloof, 
residing  in  England,  whose  cause  he  espoused,  whereby  the  old  proverb  is  exemplified: 

'My  sou  is  my  son  till  he  gets  hiui  a  wife ;. 
But  my  daughter's  my  daughter  all  the  days  of  her  life.' 

*'In  his  will,  dated  June  23,  1789,  a  few  months  before  his  own  decease,  he  thus 
remembers  his  son  William,  late  governor  of  the  Jerseys : 

"  *I  give  and  devise  all  the  lauds  I  hold  or  have  a  right  to  in  the  province  of  Nova 

*  See  Sparks'  comments  on  this,  infra,  <^  145.  See  further  criticisms  in  Trescot's  Di- 
plomacy of  the  Revolution,  119. 

+  According  to  Judge  Jones,  in  his  History  of  New  York,  (1,  135)  William  Franklin 
was  detained  in  Connecticut  ''  and  inhumanly  treated  "  at  his  father's  request.  The 
inaccuracy  of  this  statement  is  fully  shown  in  Johnston's  "  Observations"  on  Jones' 
History,  33-35. 

The  refusal  of  Congress  to  appoint  William  Temple  Franklin  to  a  diplomatic  post 
arose  chiefly  from  the  feeliug  that  when  he  was  removed  from  his  grandfather's  in- 
fluence he  might  fall  uuder  that  of  his  father,  who  was  a  bitter  loyalist. 

500 


CFIAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN.  [§  128. 

Scotia,  to  hold  to  liim,  bis  heirs  and  assigns,  forever.  I  also  give  to  hiiu  all  my  books 
and  papers  which  he  has  in  his  possession  and  all  debts  standing  against  him  on  my 
acconnt  books,  willing  that  no  payment  for  nor  restitntion  of  the  same  be  required 
of  him  by  my  executors.  The  part  he  acted  against  mo  in  the  late  war,  which  is  of 
pnblic  notoriety,  will  acconnt  for  my  leaving  him  no  more  of  an  estate  he  endeavored 
to  jl^prive  me  of.'  "     (I  Sabine's  Loyalists,  442.) 

Franklin's  home,  after  his  retnrn  to  Philadelphia,  was  with  his  (laugh- 
ter, Mrs.  Bache,  where  he  received  visitors  with  the  same  kindly  hos- 
pitality as  marked  him  in  liis  foreign  career,  though  his  infirmities  pre- 
vented him  from  giving  or  receiving  formal  entertainments.* 

His  course  after  retiring  §128.   Fraukliu's    course,  ou  and  immediately 

Irom  bis  mission.  •'  '  "^ 

after  retiring  from  his  mission,  is,  so  far  as  con- 
cerns the  mission,  exhibited  in  the  following  correspondence : 

Franklin  to  the  President  of  CongressA 

Passy,  Fehrnary  8th,  1785. 

Sir  :  I  received  by  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette  the  two  letters  you  did  me  the  honor 
of  writing  to  me  the  11th  and  14th  of  December,  the  one  inclosing  a  letter  from  Con- 
gress to  the  king,  the  other  a  resolve  of  Congress  respecting  the  convention  for  es- 
tablishing consuls.  The  letter  was  immediately  delivered  and  well  received.  The 
resolve  came  too  late  to  suspend  signing  the  convention,  it  having  been  done  July  last, 
and  a  copy  sent  so  long  since  that  we  now  expected  the  ratification.  As  that  copy 
seems  to  have  miscarried  I  now  send  another. 

I  am  not  informed  what  objection  has  arisen  in  Congress  to  the  plan  sent  me.  Mr. 
Jefferson  thinks  it  may  have  been  to  the  part  which  restrained  the  consuls  from  all 
concern  in  commerce.  That  article  was  omitted,  being  thought  unnecessary. to  be 
stii)ulated,  since  either  party  would  always  have  the  power  of  imposing  such  re- 
straints on  its  own  officers  whenever  it  should  think  fit.  I  am,  however,  of  opinion 
that  this  or  any  otlier  reasonable  article  or  alteration  may  be  obtained  at  the  desire 
of  Congress  and  established  by  a  supplement. 

Permit  me,  sir,  to  congratulate  you  on  your  being  called  to  the  high  honor  of  pre- 
siding in  our  national  councils  and  to  wish  yon  every  felicity,  being,  with  the  most 

perfect  esteem,  etc., 

B.  Franklin. 


Franklin  to  the  President  of  CongressA 

Passy,  April  12th,  1785. 

Sir  :  M.  de  Chaumont,  who  will  have  the  honor  of  presenting  this  line  to  your  ex- 
cellency, is  a  young  gentleman  of  excellent  character,  whose  father  wasoneof  our  most 
early  friends  in  this  country,  which  he  manifested  by  crediting  us  with  a  thousand 
barrels  of  gunpowder  and  other  military  stores  in  177(5,  before  we  had  provided  any 
apparent  means  of  payment.  He  has,  as  I  understand,  some  demands  to  make  on 
Congress,  the  nature  of  which  I  am  unacquainted  with  ;  but  my  regard  for  the  family 
makes  me  wish  that  they  may  obtain  a  speedy  consideration,  and  such  favorably 
issue  as  they  may  api)ear  to  merit. 

To  this  end  I  beg  leave  to  recommend  him  to  your  countenance  and  protection, 

and  am,  with  great  respect,  etc., 

P.  Franklin. 

*  From  two  very  different  sources,  Jefferson  and  Manasseh  Cutler,  we  have  notices 
in  their  letters  of  Franklin's  graciousness  in  his  extreme  age  to  visitors,  as  well  as 
of  the  comfort  he  took  in  his  home. 

t2  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  519. 

501 


§  128.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  X. 

Franlclin  to  Count  de  Vergennes.* 

Passy,  May  M,  1785. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acquaint  your  excellency  that  I  have  at  length  obtained, 
and  yesterday  received,  the  permission  of  Congress  to  return  to  America.  As  my 
malady  makes  it  impracticable  for  me  to  pay  my  devoirs  at  Versailles  personally, 
maj'^  I  beg  the  favor  of  you,  sir,  to  express  respectfully  for  me  to  his  majesty  the  deep 
sense  I  have  of  all  the  inestimable  benefits  his  goodness  has  conferred  on  my  coun- 
try ;  a  sentiment  that  it  will  be  the  business  of  the  little  remainder  of  life  now  left 
me  to  impress  equally  on  the  minds  of  all  my  countrymen.  My  sincere  prayers  are 
that  God  may  shower  down  his  blessings  on  the  king  and  queen,  their  children,  and 
all  the  royal  family,  to  the  latest  generations  ! 

Permit  me,  at  the  same  time,  to  offer  you  my  thankful  acknowledgments  for  the 
protection  and  countenance  you  afforded  me  at  my  arrival,  and  your  many  favors 
during  my  residence  here,  of  which  I  shall  always  retain  the  most  grateful  remem- 
brance. 

My  grandson  would  have  had  the  honor  of  waiting  on  you  with  this  letter,  but  he 
has  been  some  time  ill  of  a  fever. 

With  the  greatest  esteem  and  respect,  and  best  wishes  for  the  constant  prosperity 
of  yourself  and  all  your  amiable  family,  I  am,  sir,  your  excellency's  most  obedient 
and  most  humble  servant, 

B.  Franklin. 


Raijneval  to  Franklin  * 
[Translation.] 

Versailles,  May  8,  1785. 
Sir  :  I  have  learned  with  the  greatest  concern  that  you  are  soon  to  leave  us.  You 
will  carry  with  you  the  affections  of  all  France,  for  nobody  has  been  more  esteemed 
than  you.  I  shall  call  on  you  at  Passy,  to  desire  you  to  retain  for  me  a  share  in  your 
remembrance  and  renew  to  you  personally  the  assurances  of  the  most  perfect  attach- 
ment with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  etc., 

De  Rayneval. 


Franlclin  to  Jay,  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  t 

Passy,  May  10,  1785. 

Dear  Sir:  I  received  your  kind  letter  of  the  8th  of  March,  inclosing  the  resolution 
of  Congress  permitting  my  return  to  America,  for  which  I  am  very  thankful,  and  am 
now  preparing  to  depart  the  first  good  opportunity.  Next  to  the  pleasure  of  rejoin- 
ing my  own  family  will  be  that  of  seeing  you  and  yours  well  and  happy,  and  em- 
bracing once  more  my  little  friend,  whose  singular  attachment  to  me  I  shall  always 
remember. 

I  shall  be  glad  to  render  any  acceptable  service  to  Mr.  Randall.  I  conveyed  the 
bay  berry  wax  to  Abbe  de  Chalut,  with  your  compliments,  as  you  desired.  He  returns 
his  with  many  thanks.  Be  pleased  to  make  my  respectful  compliments  acceptable  to 
Mrs.  Jay;  and  believe  me  ever,  with  sincere  and  great  respect  and  esteem,  etc., 

B.  Franklin. 

p.  S.— The  striking  of  the  medals  being  now  in  agitation  here,  I  send  the  inclosed 
for  consideration.  ^-  F. 


2  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corp.,  520.  Ibid.^  521. 

502 


CHAP.  X.]  FRANKLIN.  [§  128. 

FranJclin  to  Charles  Thomson.* 

Passy,  May  10,  1785. 
Dear  Sir:  An  old  geutlenian  in  Switzerland,  long  of  the  magistracy  there,  having 
written  a  book  entitled  Dn  Gouvernement  des  Mamrs,  which  is  thonght  to  contain 
many  matters  that  may  be  useful  in  America,  desired  to  know  of  me  how  he  could 
convey  a  number  of  the  printed  copies,  to  be  distributed  gratis  among  the  members  of 
Congress.  I  advised  his  addressing  the  package  to  you  by  way  of  Amsterdam,  whence 
a  friend  of  mine  would  forward  it.  It  is  accordingly  shipped  there  on  board  the  Van 
Berckel,  Capt.  W.  Campbell.  There  are  good  things  in  the  work ;  but  his  chapter  on 
the  liberty  of  the  press  appears  to  me  to  contain  more  rhetoric  than  reason. 
With  great  esteem  I  am,  ever,  etc., 

B.  Franklin. 


Vergennes  to  FranldinA 
[Translation] 

Versailles,  May  22,  1785. 

Sir:  I  have  learnt  with  much  concern  of  your  retiring,  and  of  your  approaching 
departure  for  America.  You  can  not  doubt  but  that  the  regrets  which  you  will  leave 
will  be  proportionate  to  the  consideration  you  so  justly  enjoy. 

I  can  assure  you,  sir,  that  the  esteem  the  king  entertains  for  you  does  not  leave  you 
anything  to  wish;  and  that  his  majestj'  will  learn  with  real  satisfaction  that  your 
fellow-citizens  have  rewarded  in  a  manner  worthy  of  you  the  important  services  that 
you  have  rendered  them. 

I  beg,  sir,  that  you  will  preserve  for  me  a  share  in  your  remembrance,  and  never 
doubt  the  sincerity  of  the  interest  I  take  in  your  happiness.  It  is  founded  on  the 
sentiments  of  attachment  of  which  I  have  assured  you,  and  with  which  I  ha\e  the 
honor  to  be,  etc., 

De  Vergennes. 


Castries  to  FranJclin.t 
[Translation.] 

Versailles,  July  10,  1785. 

Sir:  I  was  not  apprised  until  within  a  few  hours  of  the  arrangements  which  you 
have  made  for  your  departure.  Had  I  been  informed  of  it  sooner  I  should  have  pro- 
posed to  the  king  to  order  a  frigate  to  convey  you  to  your  own  country  in  a  manner  suit- 
able to  the  known  importance  of  the  services  you  have  been  engaged  in,  to  the  esteem 
you  have  acquired  in  France,  and  the  particular  esteem  which  his  majesty  entertains 
for  you. 

I  pray  you,  sir,  to  accept  my  regrets,  and  a  renewed  assurance  of  the  most  entire 
consideration  with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  very  humble  and  obedient 
servant, 

De  Castries. 

*  2  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  521.  t  Ibid.,  522.  t  Ihid.,  523. 

503 


§128.]  Diplomatic  correspondence.  [chap.  x. 

Franklin  to  Jay,  secretary  of  foreign  affairs.* 

Philadelphia,  September  19,  1785. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acquaint  you  that  I  left  Paris  the  ISth  of  July,  and, 
agreeable  to  the  permission  of  Congress,  am  returned  to  my  own  country.  Mr. 
Jefferson  had  recovered  his  health,  and  was  mucli  esteemed  and  respected  there. 
Our  joint  letters  have  already  informed  yon  of  our  late  proceedings,  to  which  I  have 
nothing  to  add,  except  that  the  last  act  I  did,  as  minister  plenipotentiary  for  making 
treaties,  was  to  sign  with  him,  two  days  before  I  came  away,  the  treaty  of  friend- 
ship and  commerce  that  had  been  agreed  on  with  Prussia, t  and  which  was  to  be  car- 
ried to  The  Hague  by  Mr.  Short,  there  to  be  signed  by  the  Baron  Thulemeyer,  on  the 
part  of  the  king,  who,  without  the  least  hesitation,  bad  approved  and  conceded  to 
the  new  humane  articles  proposed  by  Congress.  Mr,  Short  was  also  to  call  at  Lon- 
don for  the  signature  of  Mr.  Adams,  who  I  learnt,  when  at  Southampton,  was  well 
received  at  the  British  court. 

The  Captain  Lamb,  who  in  a  letter  of  yours  to  Mr.  Adams  was  said  to  be  coming 
to  us  with  instructions  respecting  Morocco,  had  not  appeared,  nor  had  we  heard 
anything  of  him  ;  so  nothing  had  been  done  by  us  in  that  treaty. 

I  left  the  court  of  France  in  the  same  friendly  disposition  towards  the  United 
States  that  we  have  all  along  experienced,  though  concerned  to  find  that  our  credit 
is  not  better  supported  in  the  payment  of  the  interest-money  due  on  our  loans,  which, 
in  case  of  another  war,  must  be,  they  think,  extremely  prejudicial  to  us,  and  indeed 
may  contribute  to  draw  on  a  war  the  sooner,  by  affording  oar  enemies  the  encourag- 
ing confidence  that  those  who  take  so  little  care  to  pay  will  not  again  find  it  easy  to 
borrow.  I  received  from  the  king  at  my  departure  the  present  of  his  picture  set 
round  with  diamonds,  usually  given  to  ministers  plenipotentiary  who  have  signed 
any  treaties  with  that  court;  and  it  is  at  the  disposition  of  Congress,  to  whom  be 
pleased  to  present  my  dutiful  respects. 

I  am,  with  great  esteem  and  regard,  etc., 

B.  Franklin. 

P.  S. — Not  caring  to  trust  them  to  a  common  conveyance,  I  send  by  my  late  secre- 
tary, who  will  have  the  honor  of  delivering  them  to  you,  all  the  original  treaties  I 
have  been  concerned  in  negotiating  that  were  completed.  Those  with  Portugal  and 
Denmark  continue  in  suspense. 

B.  F. 

Of  Franklin's  reception  on  bis  return  to  Philadolphia,  of  his  election 
and  re-election  to  the  presidency  of  Pennsylvania;  of  his  part  in  the 
Constitutional  Convention,  this  is  not  the  place  to  speak.  But  it  may  not 
be  improper,  in  closing  this  notice  of  him,  to  refer  once  more  to  the 
tribute  paid  him  by  Washington,  given  when  Franklin  was  approaching 
his  end.j: 


* 2  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  524. 

t  See  this  treaty  at  large  in  Treaties  and  Couveutiona  of  the  United  States,  1889, 
p.  899. 
t  See  supra,  $  113. 

504 


CHAPTER   XL 

JOHN  AND  SAMUEL  ADAMS. 

Diplomatic  career.  ^  129.   "John  Adams  was  a  delegate  in   the  First  Coutiuental 

Congress,  and  one  of  the  most  active,  zealous,  and  efficient  mem- 
bers of  that  body.  For  three  years  his  labors  in  Congress  were  incessant,  and  of  the 
most  valuable  kind.  It  is  said  of  him  that  he  belonged  to  more  committees  than  any 
other  individual,  and  he  discharged  the  duties  of  each  with  remarkable  promptness 
and  energy. 

*'The  foreign  affairs  of  the  United  States  having  assumed  an  important  aspect, 
Mr.  Adams  was  appointed  a  commissioner  to  France  in  the  place  of  Silas  Deane,  who 
had  been  recalled.  This  appointment  took  place  on  the28fch  of  November,  1777,  and 
in  the  following  February  he  embarked  from  Boston.  After  along  and  disagreeable 
passage  of  forty-five  days  he  arrived  in  France.  Here  he  devoted  himself  to  the 
duties  of  his  mission,  in  conjunction  with  his  colleagues,  till  Dr.  Franklin  was  ap- 
pointed minister  plenipotentiary  to  the  court  of  France,  and  the  commission  was 
dissolved.  Having  no  longer  any  charge  to  execute  in  Europe,  Mr.  Adams  left  Paris 
on  the  8th  of  March,  1779,  for  Nantes,  where  he  proposed  to  embark  for  his  own 
country.  Various  accidents  and  unexpected  causes  of  delay  kept  him  there  till  the 
14th  of  June,  when  he  sailed  in  the  French  frigate  the  Sensible,  in  company  with  M. 
de  la  Luzerne,  who  was  coming  to  the  United  States  in  the  character  of  minister 
plenipotentiary,  as  successor  to  M.  Gerard.  The  French  Government  had  voluntarily 
proffered  to  Mr.  Adams  a  passage  in  this  vessel,  after  his  disappointment  in  not  sail- 
ing in  the  American  frigate  AHiance,  as  he  first  expected.  The  Sensible  arrived  in 
Boston  on  the  3d  of  August. 

''  But  he  was  not  long  allowed  to  remain  a  spectator  only  of  jniblic  events.  On 
the  27th  of  September  he  was  again  chosen  by  Congress  to  represent  his  country 
abroad,  as  minister  plenipotentiary,  for  negotiating  a  treaty  of  peace  and  a  treaty  of 
commerce  w  ith  Great  Britain,  when  that  nation  should  be  found  in  a  humor  to  rec- 
ognize the  independence  of  the  United  States  and  enter  into  bonds  of  friendship. 
A  task  more  honorable,  momentous,  and  difficult  could  not  have  awaited  him,  nor 
one  bearing  more  emphatical  testimou}'^  of  the  confidence  of  his  countrymen  in  his 
wisdom,  abilities,  integrity,  and  patriotism.  On  this  second  mission  he  sailed  in  the 
same  frigate  which  had  brought  him  from  France;  accommodations  for  this  purpose 
having  been  offered  to  Congress  by  the  ?''rench  minister  in  Philadelphia.  The  vessel 
sprang  a  leak  on  the  passage,  and  the  captain  was  obliged  to  put  into  Ferrol,  in 
Spain,  where  he  arrived  on  the  8th  of  December.  From  this  place,  that  he  might 
avoid  further  hazards  and  uncertainty  of  a  sea  voyage  in  the  depth  of  winter,  Mr. 
Adams  resolved  to  proceed  by  land  to  the  point  of  his  destination.  He  reached  Paris 
on  the  9th  of  February.  1780.  The  extreme  badness  of  the  traveling  at  this  season 
bad  detained  him  nearly  two  months  on  the  road. 

"By  the  terms  of  his  commission  the  place  of  his  residence  was  not  prescribed, 
but  for  the  present  be  chose  to  fix  himself  in  Paris,  as  amicable  relations  already  sub- 
sisted between  the  French  court  aud  Congress,  and  he  was  instructed  to  consult  the 
French  ministry  in  regard  to  any  movements  that  might  be  made  in  effecting  a 
treaty  with  England.     He  held  a  correspondence  with  Count  de  Vergennes  respect- 

505 


§  129.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XL 

iug  the  time  and  inauuer  of  carrying  his  instructious  into  execution  and  on  other 
topics;  in  all  of  which,  however,  his  opinions  and  those  of  the  French  minister  were 
somewhat  at  variance.  There  seeming  no  prospect  that  Great  Britain  would  soon 
he  inclined  to  peace,  and  Mr.  Adams  having  no  special  reasons  for  remaining  at  the 
French  court,  he  made  a  tour  to  Holland  in  the  heginuiug  of  August,  leaving  his 
secretary,  Mr.  Danjj,  at  Paris. 

"  Meantime  Congress  had  assigned  him  another  duty.  Mr.  Henry  Laurens  had 
been  appointed,  as  early  as  November,  1779,  to  negotiate  a  loan  of  ten  millions 
abroad,  but  having  been  prevented  by  various  causes  from  departing  on  this  service, 
Congress,  on  the  20th  of  June  following,  authorized  Mr.  Adams  to  engage  in  the 
undertaking,  and  prosecute  it  till  Mr.  Laurens  or  some  other  person  in  his  stead 
shonld  arrive  in  Europe.  This  commission  reached  Paris  four  weeks  after  he  had 
left  that  city,  and  Mr.  Dana  proceeded  with  it  to  Holland.  Efforts  were  immediately 
made  to  procure  a  loan  in  that  country,  which  were  for  a  long  time  ineffectual,  but 
which  at  last  succeeded. 

"Mr.  Laurens  sailed  for  Holland  in  August,  1780,  but  was  captured  a  few  days 
afterwards  by  a  British  frigate,  which  conveyed  him  to  Newfoundland,  whence  he 
was  sent  to  England  and  imprisoned  in  the  Tower.  When  this  intelligence  reached 
Congress,  it  was  resolved  to  transfer  his  appointment  to  another  person;  and  on  the 
2yth  of  December  Mr.  Adams  was  commissioned  to  negotiate  a  treaty  of  amity  and 
comuierce  with  the  United  Provinces,*  and  he  was  furnished  with  separate  letters  of 
credence  as  minister  pleuipotentiary  to  the  States-General  and  to  the  Prince  of  Or- 
ange. The  state  of  parties  in  Holland,  and  particularly  the  influence  of  England 
there,  rendered  unavailing  all  advances  of  the  American  minister  towards  a  treaty. 

"It  having  been  intimated  to  Mr.  Adams,  by  the  Due  de  la  Vauguyon,  French 
ambassador  in  Holland,  that  a  treaty  of  peace  was  in  prospect  through  the  mediation 
of  Russia  and  Austria,  and  that  Count  de  Vergennes  would  be  glad  to  see  him  on  the 
subject  at  Versailles,  he  set  off"  for  Paris  on  the  6th  of  July,  1781.  He  had  several 
interviews  with  the  Count  de  Vergennes  and  a  correspondence  of  some  length. 
After  remaining  three  weeks  at  Pans  and  Versailles  without  perceiving  any  apparent 
indications  that  this  xjroject  for  a  negotiation  would  come  to  maturity,  he  returned 
again  to  Holland. 

"On  the  14th  of  June  Congress  appointed  four  other  commissioners,  in  conjunction 
wiih  Mr.  Adams,  to  negotiate  a  treaty  of  peace;  jiamely,  Beujamiu  Franklin,  John 
Jay,  Henry  Laurens,  and  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  the  first  commission  of  Mr.  Adams 
for  this  purijose  was  annulled. 

"A  misunderstanding  having  grown  up  between  England  and  tlie  United  Provinces 
chiefly  on  account  of  the  part  taken  by  the  latter  in  joining  the  northern  j)Owers  to 
carry  into  operation  the  plan  of  the  armed  neutrality,  the  French  court  thought  it 
a  good  opportunity  for  the  United  States  to  seek  a  treaty  of  alliance  with  Holland. 
This  step  was  accordingly^  recommended  to  Congress  through  the  French  minister  at 
Philadelphia,  and,  in  consequence  of  this  suggestion,  new  powers  were  conferred  on 
Mr.  Adams,  dated  August  the  16th,  by  w^hich  he  was  commissioned  to  negotiate  a 
treaty  of  alliance  with  Holland,  limited  in  duration  to  the  continuance  of  the  war 
with  England,  and  conformable  to  the  treaties  then  subsisting  with  France. 

"The  political  relations  between  the  several  provinces  of  Holland  were  such, 
however,  that  the  process  of  negotiation  went  on  heavily  and  slowly.  The  English 
interest  still  continued  strong,  even  after  the  war  had  begun,  and  embarrassments 
of  various  kinds  were  thrown  in  the  way,  which  required  no  common  share  of 
sagacity,  lirmness,  and  i)erseverance  to  overcome.  All  these  at  length  yielded;  and 
on  tbe  8th  of  October,  1782,  a  treaty  of  commerce  between  the  United  States  and 
Holland,  and  a  convention  concerning  recaptures  were  signed  at  The  Hague. 

"Dr.  Franklin   and  Mr.  Jay  had  now  been  for  three  or  four  months  actively  en- 

*  The  Netherlands. 
506 


CHAP.  Xl]  JOHN   ADAMS.  [§§130,131. 

gaged  iu  the  negotiation  of  peace  at  Paris.  Having  thus  brought  aifairs  to  a  happy 
issue  iu  Holhind,  Mr.  Adams  hastened  to  join  the  coinniissioners,  aud  arrived  in  Paris 
hefore  the  end  of  October.  From  that  time  till  the  ))reli miliary  articles  were  signed, 
November  the  IJOtli,  he  applied  himself  unremittingly  with  his  colleagues  to  the 
details  of  the  negotiation.  He  also  took  part  in  the  discussions  respecting  the  de- 
finitive treaty  which  followed  from  time  to  time,  and  was  one  of  the  signers  of  that 
instrument. 

"In  the  winter  of  1784  he  was  in  Holland.  In  January,  1785,  he  was  appointed 
the  (irst  American  minister  plenipotentiary  to  the  court  of  St.  James.  While  in 
Eugiaud  he  wrote  his  Defense  of  the  American  Constitutions.  In  the  year  1788  per- 
mission was  granted  hira  to  return  home,  where  he  arrived  after  an  absence  of  almost 
nine  years,  during  the  whole  of  which  period  he  had  been  employed  in  services  of 
the  highest  responsibility  aud  importance.  He  was  shortly  afterwards  elected  Vice- 
President  of  the  United  States,  under  the  first  presidency  of  Washington."  (2 
Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  .')34-53C.) 

Of  Adams'  election  in  1785  as  minister  to  England,  Jones,  in  a  letter  to  Madison  of 
March  30,  thus  writes: 

"J.  Adams  is  appointed  minister  to  court  of  London,  outvoting  R,  R.  Living- 
ston and  Rutledge — Adams,  8;  Livingston,  3;  Rntledge,  2.  The  first  vote— Adams, 
6:  Livingston,  5 ;  Rutledge,  2.  Virginia  and  Maryland  at  first  voted  for  Livingston, 
but  went  over  to  Adams  finally."     (Letters  of  Joseph  Jones,  142.) 

See,  for  an  interesting  estimate  of  Adams'  position,  Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the 
Revolution,  121. 

Courage  aud  oratorical  powers.      §  130.  u  pjis  patriotism  was  arcleut  aiul  even 

fierce ;  attempts  to  corrupt  or  iutimidate  bim 
would  only  have  intensified  its  fires.  He  was  capable  of  bold,  sudden 
action,  and  be  could  defend  such  action  by  oratory  singularly  thrilling^ 
exhibiting  like  lightning  the  path  and  the  perils  ahead,  and  in  doing  so 
dazzling  as  well  as  guiding,  *  *  *  He  was,  as  Jefi'erson  said,  the 
Colossus  on  whom  depended,  so  far  oratorical  eltect  was  concerned,  the 
contest  for  independence."  * 

Resistance  to  domiuant  in-        §  13X.  Walter  Scott  tclls  of  a  Scotch  laird  who, 

fluences.  ^  ' 

when  be  was  asked  by  an  Englishman  as  to 
James  I,  said  :  '•'-  Ken  ye  an  ape  %  Gin  I  hold  him  he  bites  you ;  gin 
you  bold  him  he  bites  me."  Just  the  opposite  was  Adams.  He  could 
not  be  "  held  "  by  anybody.  If  he  suspected,  and  in  such  matters  sus. 
picion  was  natural  to  him,  any  attempt  to  ^'  hohl  "  him,  whether  b>  undue 
political  pressure,  as  he  tbought  was  the  attitude  to  him  of  France,  or 
by  a  persuasive  subtle  supremacy,  as  certainly  was  tbe  case  with  Frank- 
lin,  he  resented  and  justified  his  resentment  to  himself  by  honestly  in- 
vesting its  objects  with  the  attributes  they  would  have  had  if  his  suspi- 
cions were  true.  These  antagonisms  as  between  the  various  govern- 
ments with  which  he  came  in  contact  he  distributed  witb  impartiality, 
with  this  distinction,  that  the  one  with  which  he  had  most  closely  to 
deal  was  the  one  whose  faults  he  saw  at  the  time  most  plainly.  "  He 
has  a  sound  head  on  substantial  points,"  said  Jefi'erson,  when  speak- 


*  3  Dig.  Int.  Law,  2  ed.,  p.  927,  where  Adams'  action  on  the  peace  commission  is 

examined  at  large. 

507 


^131.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CTTAP.  XI. 

ing  of  him  on  February  14, 1783,  to  Madison  in  a  letter  heretofore  unpub- 
lished,* "and  I  think  he  has  integrity.  I  am  glad  therefore  that  he  is  on 
the  commission  (to  negotiate  peace,  a  position  Jefterson  had  declined), 
and  expect  he  will  be  useful  in  it.  His  dislike  of  all  parties  and  alt  men^ 
hy  balancing  his  prejudices,  may  give  the  same  fair  play  to  his  reason  as  a 
general  benignity  of  temper. ^^ 

In  a  subsequent  letter  Jefferson  saidi 

**  You  know  the  opinion  I  formerly  eutertaiued  of  my  friend  Mr.  Adams.  *  *  * 
I  afterwards  saw  proofs  which  couvicted  him  of  vanity  and  a  blindness  to  it  of  which 
no  germ  appeared  in  Congress.  A  seven  months'  intimacy  with  him  here  (in  Paris) 
and  as  many  weeks  in  Loudon  have  given  me  opportunities  of  studying  him  closely. 
He  is  vain,  irritable,  and  a  bad  calculator  of  the  force  and  probable  effects  of  the 
motives  which  govern  men.  This  is  all  the  ill  which  can  possibly  be  said  of  him.  He 
is  as  disinterested  as  the  being  who  made  him  ;  he  is  profound  in  his  views  and  accu- 
rate iu  his  judgment,  except  when  a  knowledge  of  the  world  is  necessary  to  form  a 
judgment.  He  is  so  amiable,  that  I  pronounce  you  will  love  him  if  ever  you  become 
acquainted  with  him.  He  would  be,  as  he  was,  a  great  man  in  Congress."  (Jefferson 
to  Madison,  January  30,  1787,  2  Jefferson's  Works,  107.) 

But  the  "  balancing"  did  not  take  place  except  on  the  rare  occasions 
in  which  the  parties  who  pressed  against  him  were  in  equal  proximity. 
He  declared,  it  is  true,  as  we  will  see  hereafter,  that  he  distrusted  all 
European  states.!  It  was,  however,  only  as  to  the  state  with  which  he 
was  at  the  time  brought  into  contact  that  this  distrust  took  overt  shape. 
When  he  was  minister  in  England  his  spirit  rose  within  him  at  the 
humiliations  there  imposed  upon  him.  When  he  was  in  France  he  was 
a  good  part  of  the  time  in  a  state  of  irrepressible  irritation  at  Vergennes 
and  at  the  whole  French  system,  f  So  it  was  in  the  controversies  between 
Franklin  and  Arthur  Lee.  Adams  had  been  for  years  in  close  alliance 
with  the  Lee  family,  but  this  by  itself  would  not  have  decided  him  to 
espouse,  as  he  said,  Arthur  Lee's  cause  against  Franklin.  §  Arthur  Lee, 
erratic,  suspected  by  Vergennes  of  at  least  want  of  caution  in  keeping 
state  secrets,  without  patience  or  tact  or  diplomatic  skill,  could  never 
have  impinged  upon  Adams ;  whereas  Adams  found  himself  when  in 
Paris  surrounded  and  confined  by  the  all-subduing  influence  of  Frank- 
lin. Even  when  it  was  notorious  that  he,  with  Arthur  Lee,  formed  a  ma- 
jority in  the  legation  and  were  ready  at  any  moment  to  overrule  Frank- 
lin, yet  it  was  to  Franklin  that  both  the  French  and  English  ministries 
turned,  as  if  he  were  not  only  the  sole  representative  of  the  United  States 
in  Europe,  but  as  if  he  was  endowed  with  plenipotentiary  power.  This 
could  not  be  helped,  yet  it  was  intolerable  to  Adams.     He  declared  to 


*  MSS.  Department  of  State.  Since  the  above  was  written  this  extract  has  been 
published  in  the  appendix  to  the  second  volume  of  Bancroft's  History  of  the  Consti- 
tution. 

t  See  3  John  Adams'  Works,  316. 

t  Instances  of  this  are  referred  to  in  index,  title  Adams. 

§  A  letter  from  John  Adams  to  Samuel  Adams,  dated  at  Passy,  December  7,  1778, 
and  criticising  with  great  freedom  his  associates  in  the  American  legation  at  Paris, 
will  be  found  in  9  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  467. 

508 


CHAP.  XI.]  JOHN    ADAMS.  [§  132. 

Livingston  on  July  18, 1783,  that  his  position  in  Paris  is  "  annihilation  f 
and  again,  on  August  13,  1783,  that  he  ''  wouhl  rather  be  a  door-lieeper 
in  Congress  than  remain  in  Paris  as  I  have  done  for  the  hist  five 
months;"*  and  even  when  he  had  Artluir  Lee  to  sustain  liim,  he  found 
himself  obliged  to  say  that  no  matter  what  arrangement  the  eommis- 
sioners  might  make  among  themselves,  to  Franklin  alone  would  foreign 
diplomatists  look  as  the  possessor  of  authority.  There  could  be  no  equi- 
poise of  dislikes  under  such  a  condition.  No  man  of  Adams'  ability,  ambi- 
tion, and  vanity  would  have  consented  to  be  thus  reduced,  as  Adams  said, 
to  a  cipher.  In  some  important  respects  this  was  unfortunate.  It  led 
him  in  his  bitterness  to  take  wrong  views  both  of  Franklin  and  of  diplo- 
macy in  general.  "  No  man,"  he  declared  to  Gerry  on  September  3, 
1783,  "  will  ever  be  pleasing  at  a  court  in  general  who  is  not  depraved 
in  his  morals  or  warped  from  your  interests."  It  added  new  vigor  to 
the  pertinacity  with  which  he  insisted  on  those  abortive  and  indecorous 
missions  to  foreign  courts  which  did  so  much  to  prejudice  our  position 
abroad,  and  which  were  not  the  less  unsuccessful  from  the  fact  that  he 
advised  such  of  those  ministers  as  he  had  influence  with  to  distrust  both 
Franklin  and  France.  It  came  near,  through  the  indiscreet  censures  on 
France  and  Vergenues  which  he  volunteered  to  Yergennes  in  corre- 
spondence and  through  the  publicity  with  which  he  charged  France 
with  selfishness  and  duplicity,  in  breaking  up  our  friendly  relations  with 
France,  and  it  might  have  achieved  that  disastrous  triumph  if  he  had 
succeeded  in  influencing  Congress  to  retain  Arthur  Lee  in  the  Paris 
mission  and  to  disgrace  Franklin.  It  led  him  during  the  peace  nego- 
tiations to  oppose  Franklin's  distinctive  view  that  the  treaty  was  not  a 
mere  grant  of  independence  from  Britain  but  a  partition  of  the  British 
Empire,  leaving  the  United  States  in  the  same  position  as  it  left  what 
remained  of  the  British  Empire,  as  to  rights  not  specifically  distributed. 
It  made  him  at  least  indifl'erent  to  Franklin's  proposition  for  an  assump- 
tion by  the  United  States  of  loyalist  indemnities  in  exchange  for  the 
cession  of  Canada.  But  the  fault  was  in  a  large  measure  in  the  action 
of  Congress  by  which  the  Paris  legation  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  a 
committee  of  ministers  each  with  indeterminate  powers,  t  And  it  is 
eminently  to  Adams'  credit  that  he  perceived  this,  and  advised  Con- 
gress to  retain  for  the  French  legation  Fraiddin  as  sole  minister.  When, 
however,  the  peace  commission  was  organized  it  seemed  necessary  for 
this  special  purpose  to  constitute  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  have  in  it  repre- 
sentatives from  the  several  sections,  and  to  relieve  Franklin  from  the 
enormous  responsibility  which  would  have  been  cast  on  him  by  being 
the  sole  envoy  for  pacification;  and  in  this  i)oint  Franklin  and  Adams 
concurred. 

How  far  influenced i).Y  van-        §132.  "I  theu,"  subscqueutly  Said  Hamilton, 

when  speaking  of  his  own  observations  as  a  mem- 

*  See  7  John  Adams'  Works,  109,  130.  t  See  8ui)ra,  ^  106,  ff, 

509 


<$i  132. J  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XI. 

ber  of  Congress,  ''  adopted  an  opiuiou,  which  all  my  subsequeut  expe- 
rieuce  has  coiilirmed,  that  he  is  a  mau  of  au  imagiuatioii  sublimated 
and  eccentric,  propitious  neither  to  the  regular  display  of  sound  judg- 
ment nor  to  steady  perseverance  in  a  systematic  plan  of  conduct,  and  I 
began  to  perceivx^,  what  has  since  been  too  manifest,  that  to  this  defect 
are  added  the  unfortunate  foibles  of  vanity  without  bonds  and  a  jeal- 
ousy capable  of  discoloring  every  object.  Strong  evidence  of  some  traits 
of  this  character  is  to  be  found  in  a  journal  of  Mr.  Adams,  which  was 
sent  by  the  then  secretary  of  foreign  aflairs  to  Congress.  The  reading 
of  this  journal  extremely  embarrassed  his  friends,  especially  the  dele- 
gates of  Massachusetts,  who  more  than  once  interrupted  it,  and  at  last 
succeeded  in  putting  a  stop  to  it,  on  the  suggestion  that  it  bore  the 
marks  of  a  private  and  confidential  paper,  which  by  some  mistake  had 
gotten  into  its  present  situation,  and  never  could  have  been  designed 
as  a  public  document  for  the  inspection  of  Congress.  The  good  humor 
of  that  body  yielded  to  the  suggestion.'- * 

In  this  journal  occurred  the  passage  quoted  by  Hamilton:  *'*The  com- 
pliment of '  Monsieur,  vous  etes  le  Washington  de  la  negociation'  was  re- 
peated to  me  by  more  than  one  person.  *  *  *  a  few  of  these  compli- 
ments would  kill  Franklin  if  they  should  come  to  his  ears.''  t  In  a  letter, 
heretofore  unpublished,  of  December  7, 1783,  from  Osgood,  a  Massachu- 
setts delegate,  to  Adams,  |  the  reading  of  this  journal  is  thus  noticed: 

"  You  will  pardou  lue  in  candidly  uieiitiouing  to  you  tbe  eitects  of  your  long  jour- 
nal, forwarded  after  tbe  signing  of  the  provisional  treaty.  It  was  read  by  tbe  secre- 
tary in  Congress.  It  was  too  minute  for  tbe  delicacy  of  several  of  tbe  gentlemen. 
Tbey  appeared  very  mueb  disposed  to  make  it  appear  ridiculous." 

There  is  a  simplicity  in  recording  such  incidents  as  these  and  report- 
ing thetii  to  Congress,  which  is  at  least  inconsistent  with  guile  as  well 
as  with  a  capacity  to  judge  of  the  effect  of  such  communications  upon 
others;  but,  aside  from  this,  such  keen  susceptibility  to  praise,  with  its 
counterpoise  of  irritation  and  resentment  at  the  withholding  of  praise, 
is  not  a  characteristic  of  a  safe  negotiator.  Had  Adams  been  sole  min- 
ister at  Paris  at  tbe  time  when  he  addressed  Vergennes  in  terms  of  such 
irritation  that  Vergennes  declined  to  have  further  intercourse  with  him, 
our  alliance  with  France  might  have  been  imperiled.  Had  Adams 
been  the  sole  negotiator  of  peace  in  1782  it  is  by  no  means  sure  that, 
subject  as  he  was  on  the  one  side  to  the  attraction  of  flattery,  on  the 
other  side  to  the  repulsion  of  suspicion,  the  immense  concessions  of 


*  6  Hamilton's  Works,  by  Lodge,  396. 

t  3  Jobn  Adams'  Works,  309. 

I  Bancroft's  MSS. 

Samuel  Osgood  was  born  in  1748,  became  a  mercbant  in  Boston,  served  in  the  Con- 
tinental Army  in  1775;  left  tbe  army  in  1776 ;  was  a  delegate  from  Massacbusetts  to 
Congress  between  1780  and  1784 ;  was  Postmaster-General  in  1789-1791,  and,  on  re- 
moving to  New  York  became  naval  officer  of  tbe  port  of  New  York  from  1803  till  bis 
deatb  in  1813. 

During  tbe  Revolution,  when  in  Congress,  be  was  a  strong  supporter  of  Samuel 
Adams. 

510 


CHAP.  XI.]  JOHN    ADAMS.  [§^133,134. 

the  [>eace  of  1782,  the  result  iu  the  main  of  Friiukliu's  caliiuiess,  tact, 
clear  intellect,  and  comprehensive  patriotism,  would  have  been  ob- 
tained. The  ditticulty  was  distrust  of  France,  which  was  then  the 
normal  condition  of  Adams'  mind,  ])artly  because  France  was  locally 
the  dominant  political  influence,  partly  because  Franklin  was  supposed 
to  be  unduly  friendly  to  France,  partly  because  he  considered  himself 
neglected  by  France,  and  partly  because  he  exaggerated  the  bias  of 
France  towards  Spain.  But  on  this  question  the  following  from  Edward 
Everett  is  well  worthy  of  acceptance ; 

"  Wchave  tbo  hi<;lie8t  admiration  of  the  talent,  tlio  i)oUtioal  courage,  the  living 
ardor,  and  the  unspotted  purity  of  John  Adams,  the  '  Colossus  of  independence.' 
None  can  exceed  us  in  respect  for  the  Spartan  firmness,  the  matchless  circumspection, 
the  dignified  patience  of  Jay.  But  these  sentiments  may  he  reconciled  with  the  high- 
est respect  for  Franklin's  sagacity,  integrity^,  and  patriotism,  and  for  the,  sincerity  of 
the  French  court.  There  is  no  proof  that  France  was  playing  ns  false."  (Everett,  iu 
33  North  Amer.  Rev.,  474.) 

Zealous  injh^ejerformance        §  133.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  his  tact  or 

judgment,  of  Adams'  zeal  in  the  performance  of 
his  diplomatic  duties  there  can  be  question.  His  letters,  as  given  in 
the  following  volumes,  occupy  much  more  space  than  even  tliose  of 
Franklin.  They  consist  however  in  a  large  measure  of  copious  extracts 
from  foreign  journals,  with  occasional  discussions  of  European  politics. 
In  some  respects  they  may  be  useful,  as  giving  notes  of  current  political 
events;  but  they  do  not,  because  they  could  not,  give  us  an  inside  view 
of  i:)oiitical  secrets,  nor. are  they  a  satisfactory  record  of  legation  busi- 
ness. That  business  fell  into  the  hands  of  Franklin  to  perform  and 
narrate.  Yet  of  Adams'  zeal  and  industry  these  letters  are  abundant 
proof.  And  it  is  difficult  not  to  admire  the  cheerfulness  with  which  he 
obeyed  the  orders  of  Congress,  distasteful  as  they  might  be,  and  the 
energy  which  he  threw  into  each  new  duty  imposed  on  him,  however 
onerous,  provided  that  in  the  discharge  of  it  he  had  the  leadership. 

Chauges  in  his  views  as  to  g  I34.    J^t   tllC   OUtset    Of   his    political    life     John 

diplomacy.  0  ^ 

Adams,  then  in  full  sympathy  with  his  eminent 
namesake,  Samuel  Adams,  belonged,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  distinct- 
ively revolutionary  or  "liberative"  school  of  American  statesmen.* 
The  work  to  be  done,  in  their  view,  was  the  throwing  oft"  of  the  British 
yoke,  and  the  instrument  of  revolution  was  to  be  earnest  "  militia"  force. 
This  force,  they  held,  when  operating  in  diplomacy,  as  well  as  in  war 
and  finance,  was  to  succeed  by  its  own  vehement  simplicity.  Of  this 
policy  John  Adams  was  the  principal  exponent  in  the  line  of  diplomacy. 
To  carry  it  out,  ministers  of  straightforward  earnestness  were  to  be  sent, 
without  invitation,  to  the  leading  European  continental  courts,  demand- 
ing, in  language  not  to  be  too  deferential,  not  merely  recognition,  but 


Supra,  §$2,  4,  11;  15-19. 

511 


§  134.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XL 

pecuniary  aid.  *  Adams  \Yas  the  moving  power  which  produced  this 
multiplication  of  legatious.  By  his  advice,  against  that  of  Fjankliu  and 
Vergennes,  was  Dana  sent  to  Russia  on  a  mission  not  merely  barren 
but  humiliating.  In  accordance  with  his  policy  was  the  extraordinary 
spectacle  exhibited  of  Izard  remaining  in  Paris  during  the  whole  two 
years  of  his  fantastic  mission  to  Tuscany,  and  of  Arthur  and  William 
Lee  traversing  central  Europe,  repelled  from  court  to  court  with  a  dis- 
respect which  through  them  reached  their  country,  t  It  was  also  in 
accordance  with  this  view  that  a  blunt  candor  was  adopted  by  Adams 
at  the  outset  of  his  diplomatic  career,  and  that,  as  a  result  of  this  can- 
dor, exhibited  in  certain  unnecessary  advice  given  by  him  to  Vergennes, 
the  rupture  already  spoken  of  occurred  between  him  and  that  amiable 
minister.  I 

*Su2}ra,  H  6,  15,  106. 

t  Siqn-a,  ^  18. 

t  See  Himtingtou  to  Adams,  Jan.  10,  1781,  condeuming  this  want  of  consideration, 
and  also  7  John  Adams'  Works^  353  ;  2  (printed)  Journal  Secret  Session  of  Congress, 
393. 

Mr.  Leuky  on  this  topic  thus  speaks:  "On  Februarj^,  1780,  John  Adams  arrived 
in  Paris  with  instructions  to  negotiate  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain 
in  the  event  of  a  peace,  but  his  relations  with  Vergennes  were  very  stormy.  Adams 
was  an  able  and  an  honest  man,  and  as  he  had  been  commissioner  at  Paris  on  the 
recall  of  Silas  Deane,  he  was  not  quite  unaccustomed  to  European  ways,  but  he 
appears  to  have  been  singularly  wanting  in  the  peculiar  tact  and  delicacy  required  in 
a  diplomatist.  The  terms  in  which  he  complained  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  French 
expeditions  to  America,  the  anxiety  which  he  showed,  at  a  time  when  America  was 
depending  almost  wholly  upon  French  assistance,  to  represent  his  country  as  com- 
pletely the  equal  of  France,  and  to  disclaim  all  idea  of  obligation,  and  the  sturdy  but 
somewhat  pedantic  republicanism  with  which  he  thought  it  necessary  to  assure  the 
minister  of  one  of  the  most  despotic  sovereigns  in  Europe  that  '  the  principle  that  the 
people  have  a  right  to  a  form  of  government  according  to  their  own  judgments  and 
inclinations  is  in  this  intelligent  age  so  well  agreed  on  in  the  world  that  it  would  be 
thought  dishonorable  in  mankind  in  general  to  violate  it'  (5  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr., 
299)  made  the  worst  possible  impression.  Vergennes  positively  refused  to  hold  any 
further  communication  with  any  American  envoy  except  Franklin,  while  Franklin 
himself  was  only  able  to  smooth  the  troubled  waters  by  disavowing  the  sentiments  of 
his  colleagues.  Vergennes  was  perfectly  determined  not  to  make  any  peace  apart 
from  America,  and  ho  was  extremely  anxious  not  to  sever  the  interests  of  America 
from  those  of  France,  but  he  feared  greatly  that  if  Adams  were  suffered  to  offer  a 
commercial  treaty  a  separate  peace  might  be  made  between  America  and  England, 
and  that  the  latter  powder  might  then  turn  her  undivided  strength  against  her  Euro- 
pean enemies.  On  the  other  hand,  he  clearly  recognized  that  a  speedy  peace  had  be- 
come a  capital  interest  to  France.  He  was  fully  resolved  not  to  continue  the  war  for 
the  purpose  of  extending  American  republicanism  to  Canada,  and,  provided  the  inde- 
pendence of  America  were  actually  established,  he  had  no  wish  to  oblige  England  to 
make  any  recognition  which  might  appear  to  her  a  humiliation.  The  independence 
of  Switzerland  and  Genoa,  he  said,  had  never  been  formally  recognized  by  their  for- 
mer masters,  and  Si>ain  had  delayed  her  acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of 
Holland  till  long  after  it  had  been  established  indisputably  as  a  fact."  Ci  Lecky'3 
History  of  England,  176.) 

512 


CHAP.  XI.]  JOHN    ADAMS.  [§  135. 

He  justified  this  in  a  letter  of  February  21,  1782,  already  quoted,  to 

Living'stou,  in  wliicU  he  said : 

''Wise  men  know  that  militia  sometitnos  gaiu  victories  over  regular  troops  oven 
by  departing  from  the  rules,"  adding,  "  I  have  long  since  learned  that  a  man  may 
give  ofteuse  and  yet  succeed."     (7  John  Adams'  Works,  525,528.) 

But  it  is  evident  that  as  time  passed  on  he  became  doubtful  as  to 
the  success  of  the  "militia-'  system,  and  of  the  elfectiveness  of  an  en- 
tirely unceremonious  and  unsophisticated  mode  of  dealing  with  foreign 
governments.  He  never,  it  is  true,  resorted  to  anything  like  trickery 
in  his  political  procedures,  whether  domestic  or  foreign.  Of  trickery 
he  was  not  only  incapable,  but  his  very  attempt  at  it  would,  from 
the  simplicity  of  his  nature,  have  been  so  trausj)arent  as  to  cease  to  be 
a  trick.  But  he  began  to  adapt  himself  not  only  to  the  considerate 
regard  for  the  feelings  of  others,  which  is  as  essential  to  dii)lomatic  as 
it  is  to  social  life,  but  to  the  rules  of  the  ''  regular"  service,  at  which 
he  had  previously  so  much  chafed.  As  President  he  was  careful  to  send 
to  foreign  courts  the  most  experienced  and  courteous  statesmen  he 
could  find.  And  so  far  from  tiiugiug  abroad  ministers  without  assur- 
ances of  their  reception,  he  made  it  a  sine  qua  iion  of  his  famous  jiacifi- 
catory  mission  to  France  that  no  ministers  should  go  to  France  unless 
assurances  came  that  they  would  be  received  with  the  respect  due  the 
representatives  of  a  powerful  and  independent  state. 

As  to  Ms  conception  of  the        s  135.  Of  his  chauffc  of  political  views  in  other 

Rovolutioa.  •'  o  i 

relations  notice  has  been  already  taken;  and  it 
has  been  seen  that  with  the  era  of  peace,  when  the  time  for  destruction 
was  over,  he  left,  perhaps  not  without  some  little  abruptness,  the  ranks 
of  purely  liberative  revolutionary  statesmen,  and  betook  himself  to  the 
work  of  buihiing  up  a  system  in  place  of  that  to  the  pulling  down  of  which 
he  had  contributed  so  largely.  And  if  in  this  he  is  open  to  criticism,  this 
woidd  be  not  for  undertaking  constructive  work,  but  for  undertaking 
it  as  something  to  be  started  de  novo.  Under  the  auspices  of  the  con- 
structive statesmen  of  the  Revolution — by  Washington,  Franklin,  Liv- 
ingston, and  Morris,  in  particidar — a  constitutional  edifice,  not  without 
great  opposition  from  those  with  whom  Adams  was  politically  associ- 
ated, was  gradually  growing  up  under  the  temporary  scaffolding  which 
the  confederate  system  afforded,  and  this  constitutional  edifice  was 
soon  to  take  final  shape  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  But 
this  work  was  not  helped  by  Adams'  publications  issued  by  him  when 
he  took  up  the  position  of  a  constructive.  Honest  and  patriotic  as  he 
was,  it  was  his  tendency  to  overstate  his  case,  and  the  arguments  he 
used  to  show  the  importance  of  a  new  and  strong  government  might, 
if  they  had  not  been  qualified  by  the  expositions  of  the  Federalist,  have 
driven  from  the  new  constitution  some  of  those  who  gave  it  a  decisive 
support.*     This,  however,  does  not  belong  to  our  present  range  of  top- 


*See  supra,  $  4. 
33  SvH  513 


§  135a.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XI. 

ics.  It  is  enough  here  to  say  that  zealous  as  Adams  was  during  the 
Eevolution  for  what  he  called  "  militia  diplomacy,"  it  was  not  adopted 
by  him  when  he  took  the  helm  in  person. 

Samuel  Adams.  ^  I35a.  The  volumiuous  papers  of  Samuel  Adams,  in 
the  possession  of  Mr.  Bancroft,  the  free  inspection  of 
which  he  granted  to  me,  enable  an  accurate  estimate  to  be  made  of  the 
character  of  this  remarkable  statesman,  whose  career  they  illustrate. 
In  the  series  of  large  volumes  in  which  this  correspondence  is  entered 
are  given  not  merely  the  letters  he  received  during  the  Revolution,  but 
drafts  or  copies  of  letters  written  by  him.  Kot  only  are  his  political 
views  here  brought  to  light  without  reserve,  but  in  his  fiimily  letters 
and  in  the  drafts  and  memoranda  of  i^apers  issued  or  proposed  to  be 
issued  by  him  his  character,  as  well  as  his  life,  are  exhibited  with  a  full- 
ness and  naturalness  which  win  entire  coutidence  that  we  have  here 
exhibited  to  us  the  man  as  he  really  was.  And  among  his  character- 
istics we  discover  the  following: 

Incoiruptible  in  every  sense  of  the  term,  desiring  neither  money  nor 
office,  and  incapable  of  being  swerved  from  his  course  by  either  5  accus- 
tomed to  live  with  great  frugality,  and  so  indilferent  to  money  as  to 
take  no  pains  even  to  make  it  for  his  daily  support,  he  gave  untiring 
energy  and  single-hearted  devotion  to  the  assertion  and  maintenance 
of  the  liberty  of  the  individual  against  authority.  This  principle  he 
gathered  from  the  Puritans  by  whom  Massachusetts  was  settled,  and 
like  them  he  did  not  trouble  himself  with  the  inquiry  how  far  the  liberty 
of  one  man,  if  absolutely  carried  out,  may  not  be  a  deprivation  of  lib- 
erty in  others.  Liberty  of  the  individual  was  under  all  liazards  to  be 
secured  and  all  sorts  of  despotisms  overthrown.  To  enforce  these  views 
he  used  the  town  meetings  of  Massachusetts  with  skill  and  zeal  that 
knew  no  abatement.  The  field  was  an  admirable  one  for  his  purpose. 
At  these  meetings  there  were  to  be  found  many  high  spirited  and 
determined  men  like  himself  by  whom  the  cause  of  liberty  was  held 
deserving  of  every  sacrifice,  and  by  these  men  the  town  meetings  were 
controlled,  and  from  them  delegates  were  elected  to  provincial  assem- 
blies and  to  committees  of  correspondence.  In  this  way  men  of  his  own 
type  were  chosen  as  his  associates  in  public  affairs,  and  over  them  his 
influence  was  supreme. 

When  we  read  his  correspondence  we  see  the  source  of  the  elements 
of  this  influence.  He  controlled  the  elections;  and  such  was  his  aus- 
tere purity  of  character,  so  earnest  and  yet  implacable  his  advocac^^  of 
the  principles  he  maintained,  so  keen  the  logic  with  which  he  carried 
out  these  principles  to  their  extremest  consequences,  that  those  who 
went  to  Congress  under  his  auspices  were  apt  to  remain  in  it  under  his 
control. 

But  devotion  so  uncompromising  to  the  liberty  of  tiie  individual  could 
not  be  limited  to  resistance  to  authority  from  abroad.    By  authority  at 

514 


CHAP.  XI.]  SAMUEL    ADAMS.  [§  135a. 

Lome  this  principle  could  also  be  put  in  jeopardy.  To  bini  the  town 
meeting  was  the  }>rimary  guardian  of  liberty,  and  it  was  because  Con- 
gress represented  either  town  meetings,  or  the  equivalent  ot  town  meet- 
ings, that  he  regarded  it  as  a  proper  depository  of  power.  But  beyond 
this  he  would  not  go.  He  was  for  placing  the  entire  direction  of  public 
affairs  in  the  hands  of  congressional  committees  acting  under  the  im- 
mediate direction  of  Congress  ;  and  he  not  only  resolutely  opposed  the 
establishment  of  dep?.rtments  of  tinance  and  of  foreign  affairs,  but  when 
these  departments  were  filled  by  the  election  of  Morris  and  Livingston, 
be  not  only  looked  on  these  eminent  men  with  distrust  as  intruders  on 
the  domain  of  popular  rights,  but  he  almost  uniformly  threw  his  influ- 
ence against  the  measures  the}^  hekl  necessary  for  the  public  good.  Nor 
was  this  all.  Washington  was  in  military  affairs  more  or  less  supreme; 
and  while  he  respected  Washington's  moral  character  and  while  he  was 
not  a  participant  in  any  cabal  for  his  remov^al,  yet  he  opposed  almost 
every  project  which  Washington  thought  necessary  for  military  success, 
while  heover  and  overagain  insisted  that  Washington's  '^  Fabian  dilatori- 
ness"  should  be  overruled  by  peremptory  congressional  instructions  to 
attack  the  enemy  no  matter  at  what  odds.  And  the  jealousy  with  which 
he  watched  Washington  as  the  embodiment  of  military  power  appears 
from  the  frequent  letters  by  and  to  him  among  his  papers,  in  which  the 
"  Fabian  policy  "  of  the  "  great  man  "  is  disapproved  and  his  measures 
for  building  up  the  army  objected  to.  And  this  may  be  attributed  not 
so  much  to  personal  opposition  to  Washington  as  to  his  dislike  of 
executive  authority  and  to  his  accei)tance  of  the  view,  elsewhere 
commented  on,  that  in  revolutions  heroic  and  impetuous  force  is  rather 
embarrassed  than  aided  by  the  arts  of  military  and  diplomatic  science, 
and  the  mechanism  constructed  by  these  arts  it  can  sweep  aside  by  its 
natural  onslaught. 

With  Franklin  Samuel  Adams  had  little  correspondence  ;  but  among 
his  papers  are  numerous  letters  from  Arthur  Lee,  Richard  H.  Lee,  and 
William  Lee,  charging  Franklin  with  dissoluteness,  disloyalty,  and 
peculation  ;  and  when  it  was  known  that  Arthur  Lee's  continuance  in 
the  French  legation  would  make  Franklin's  position  intolerable,  Samuel 
Adams  voted  not  only  to  retain  Arthur  Lee,  but  to  humiliate  Franklin 
by  a  resolution  declaring  him  to  be  engaged  in  *'  dissensions"  in  that 
legation. 

The  position  of  Congress  when  led  by  Samuel  Adams,  especially  on 
the  question  of  enlistments,  was  not  unlike  that  of  the  Parliament  of  1G54 
when  led  by  Bradshaw.  In  both  cases  legislation  deemed  essential  by 
the  executive  was  refused.  In  letters  written  by  confidential  agents 
of  the  British  Government  in  1781  and  the  early  part  of  1782  it  was  said 
that  Washington's  only  course  in  order  to  sustain  himself  would  be  to 
follow  the  example  of  Cromwell  and  dissolve  and  even  imprison  the  con- 
tumacious legislators;  and  it  was  further  said  that  if  Washington  took 
this  course  he  would  be  supported  by  the  army.    But  Cromwell's  dissolu- 

515 


§  135a.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORKESPONDENCE.  [CIIAP.  XI. 

tiou  of  parliamentary  goveruiiient  was  followed  in  a  few  years  by  a 
restoration  of  the  Staarts.  Washington's  submission  to  the  legislative 
action,  however  unwise  that  action  was,  was  followed  in  a  few  years  by 
the  call  of  a  Constitutional  Convention,  of  which  he  was  i)resident,  and 
by  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Two  causes,  after  the  war  was  over,  contributed  greatly  to  modify 
Samuel  Adams'  jealousy  of  executive  i^ower.  In  the  first  place  the 
Continental  Congress  fell  into  a  decrepitude  which  drew  from  him  a 
reluctant  confession  that  it  was  as  a  body  incapable  of  administering 
the  federal  affairs  of  the  Colonies,  and  that  for  such  purposes  a  stronger 
federal  government  should  be  instituted.  In  the  second  place  Shay's 
rebellion  showed  that  by  town  meetings  the  affairs  of  States  could  not  be 
satisfactorily  governed,  and  that  a  stronger  State  government  was  neces- 
sary to  preserve  the  peace  than  that  which  previously  had  been  his 
ideal.  He  adopted,  as  the  result  of  this  experience,  the  position  that 
both  federal  and  State  governments,  as  co-ordinate  sovereign  powers, 
should  be  supreme  in  their  particular  orbits.  Hence  it  was  that  he 
accepted  the  federal  Constitution  as  reported  by  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention, on  the  understanding  that  amendments  should  be  adopted  giv^- 
Ing  additional  security  to  individual  liberty  and  State  sovereignty;  and 
that,  when  these  amendments  were  passed  in  substance  as  he  inoposed, 
he  gave  the  Constitution  his  cordial  support.  Hence  also  it  was  that  as 
governor  of  the  State,  in  ITOtt,  1795,  1796,  he  was  resolute  in  maintain- 
ing the  supremacy  of  State  law  as  much  against  popular  tumult  on  the 
one  side  as  federal  aggression  on  the  other.  Yet  till  his  death,  in  1803, 
he  maintained,  while  loyally  accepting  the  federal  Constitution,  and 
accepting,  though  not  until  after  long  experience,  the  necessity  of  invest- 
ing the  executive  and  judiciary  with  powers  in  their  fundamental  rela- 
tions co-ordinate  with  the  legislature,  he  watched  with  his  old  jealousy 
any  encroachment  of  authority,  whether  federal  or  State,  over  the  limits 
of  the  law,  and  he  continued  to  regard  England  as  she  then  was  with  the 
same  distrust  with  which  his  Puritan  predecessors  had  regarded  Eng- 
land under  Charles  II  and  he  himself  had  regarded  England  under  Lord 
North.  This  brought  him  into  antagonism  with  the  federalists,  by  whom 
his  election  as  governor  was  opposed,  and  caused  him  to  doubt  the  wis- 
dom of  Jay's  treaty  and  to  support  Jefferson's  candidacy  for  the  presi- 
denc3\     His  life  then  fell  into  three  distinct  eras : 

(1)  That  of  rightful  organization  of  popular  j)ower  to  overthrow  the 
British  rule. 

(2)  That  of  the  wrong-headed  diversion  of  these  forces  for  the  obstruc- 
tion of  the  building  up  an  adequate  revolutionary  government. 

(3)  That  of  the  rightful  and  harmonious  adjustment  of  popular  and  of 
administrative  power,  which  he  advocated  and  enforced  after  the  per- 
fection of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

516 


CHAPTER  XII. 


ARTHUR  LEE. 


Outline  of  history.  §  136.  Arthur  Lee,  according  to  the  notice  by  Sparks, 
in  his  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  tiie  Eevolution, 
was  a  native  Of  Virginia,  and  born  on  the  20th  of  December,  1740.  His 
early  education  was  finished  at  Eton  College,  in  England,  whence  he 
proceeded  to  Edinburgh,  with  a  view  of  preparing  himself  for  the  med- 
ical profession.  Having  gone  through  with  the  usual  courses,  he  took 
the  degree  of  doctor  of  medicine.  After  leaving  Edinburgh  he  traveled 
in  Holland  and  Germany,  and  then  returned  to  Virginia,  where  he  com- 
menced the  practice  of  physic.  Not  well  satisfied  with  this  calling,  he 
resolved  to  abandon  it  and  apply  himself  to  the  study  of  the  law.  He 
went  over  to  London,  and  became  a  student  in  the  Temple  about  the 
year  176l>. 

From  this  period  till  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution  Arthur  Lee 
held  a  correspondence  with  his  brothers,  and  several  other  persons  in 
America,  respecting  the  political  state  of  things  in  England,  and  the 
transactions  relating  to  the  Colonies.  He  was  warmly  attached  to  the 
interests  of  his  country,  and  was  appointed  by  the  assembly  of  Massa- 
chusetts to  be  agent  for  that  colony,  as  successor  to  Dr.  Franklin, 
who  left  England  in  the  spring  of  1775.  In  December  of  the  same  year 
the  committee  of  secret  correspondence  requested  Mr.  Lee  to  act  as 
their  secret  agent  in  London,  and  to  transmit  to  them  any  information 
which  he  might  think  important.  He  wrote  to  the  committee  several 
letters  while  acting  in  this  agencyo    - 

When  commissioners  to  the  court  of  France  were  appointed,  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson, one  of  the  number,  declined  accepting  the  appointment,  and 
Arthur  Lee  was  put  in  his  place  October  22,  1770.  He  proceeded  from 
London  to  Paris,  where  he  met  the  other  commissioners.  In  the  spring 
of  1777  he  went  to  Spain,  by  the  advice  of  his  colleagues,  with  the  de- 
sign of  procuring  aid  from  the  Spanish  Government  for  the  United 
States,  in  which  he  was  partially  successful.  On  his  return  to  Paris 
he  made  a  short  tour  to  Vienna  and  Berlin  for  similar  purposes,  and 
maintained  for  some  time  a  correspondence  of  a  political  nature  with 
Baron  de  Schulenberg,  one  of  the  Prussian  ministers.  Meantime  he 
received  from  Congress  the  appointment  of  commissioner  to  Spain,  but 
he  never  went  out  of  France  while  acting  under  this  commission.  It 
expired  when  Mr.  Jay  was  made  minister  plenipotentiary  to  that  court. 

517 


§§137,138]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

Arthur  Lee  returned  to  the  United  States  in  September,  1780,  and 
the  next  year  he  was  chosen  a  representative  to  the  assembly  of  Vir- 
ginia. By  this  body  he  was  sent  a  delegate  to  Congress.  While  in  that 
capacity  he  was  made  one  of  a  commission  to  form  treaties  with  the 
Indians  on  the  northwestern  frontiers,  and  was  occupied  several  months 
in  the  duties  of  that  expedition.  He  died  in  Virginia,  after  a  short  ill- 
ness, on  the  12th  of  December,  1792.* 

His  political  position  in  Eng-         s  137,  Qf  Arthur  Lcc's  coursc  in  England,  prior 

laud  prior  to  1776.  ^  o  ,  t 

to  his  removal  to  Paris  in  1770,  we  have  occa- 
sional glimpses.  Abandoning  medicine,  he  became,  after  due  study,  a 
barrister;  he  was  a  frequent  writer  in  the  public  i^ress,  and  he  was  in 
particular  the  author  of  a  series  of  papers  called  Junius  Americanus^ 
which  undertook  to  apply  to  British  action  towards  America  the  same 
style  of  invective  which  Junius  applied  to  British  atfairs.  He  was  an  ac- 
quaintance of  Paul  Wentworth,  whose  position  is  described  in  another 
page ;  t  and  of  their  relations  Governor  Hutchinson  gives  the  following 
notice  in  his  diary  under  date  of  April  27,  1775: 

"Paul  Weutwortli  called;  gave  me  a  long  liisLory  of  bis  connecfion  with  Mr.  Lee 
(Junius  Amcricauus),  of  bis  endeavor  to  stop  bini  from  further  writing,  and  of  his 
persuading  him  to  go  abroad  next  summer,  and  fnrnisliing  lilni  with  £300,  which  he 
would  consider  as  borrowed.  Wished  bis  brother  in  Virginia  might  bo  of  the  council 
there,  and  that  Lee  himself  mhjht  have  the  mi)iistry\s  countenance  {under  Lord  North),  or 
at  least  their  connivance,  for  a  place  in  the  city  (of  London),  so  as  to  be  fair  for  suc- 
ceeding G)yn,  when  he  dies,  in  the  recorder's  place." 

The  inference  from  this  is,  that  down  to  the  final  rupture  in  1776 
Arthur  Lee  did  not  consider  himself  released  from  his  British  allegiance, 
but  that,  in  common  with  others  who  afterwards  took  decided  ground 
on  the  American  side,  he  was  ready  to  accept  official  position  from  the 
British  Gov^ernment,  while  at  the  same  time  maintaining  what  were 
then  considered  the  distinctive  liberties  of  the  Colonies.  If  Hutchin- 
son be  correct,  Arthur  Lee's  application,  through  Paul  Wentwortb, 
was  not  merely  for  some  official  position  in  London  for  himself,  but  for 
a  place  in  the  council  in  Virginia  for  his  brother.  But  the  utmost  that 
we  can  gather  from  this  passage  is  that  Arthur  Lee,  in  the  summer  of 
1775,  agreed  to  abaudon  his  "  Junian''  labors,  and  was  an  applicant  for 
the  ministry's  intluence  in  order  to  obtain  a  city  office.  There  is  noth- 
ing, however,  in  this  inconsistent  with  loyalty  to  Congress  when  he 
took  office  under  it  in  1776. 

His  connection  with  Wilkes.     ^  138.  It  is  principally  iu  couuection  with  Wilkes 

that  Arthur  Lee,  when  in  England,  appears  before 
the  i)ublic.  He  distinguished  himself,  so  we  are  told,  by  an  eloquent 
address  to  the  lord  mayor  of  London,  in  one  of  the  various  London  cam- 
paigns in  which  Wilkes  was  engaged. |    '^  Our  brother,"  so  writes  William 


*  See  also  Arthur  Lee's  Life,  by  his  nej)hevv,  Richard  Henry  Lee,  Boston,  1829. 
ilnfra,  ^  208.  t  See  1  Life  of  Artliur  Lee,  29-32. 

518 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  [§  139. 

Sliii)peii,}ibrother-in-law,  to  Richard  H.Lee, on  Angiistl4, 1773,  "issliin- 
ing  before  the  livery  of  Loiuloii  in  iiuich-apphuuled  speeches  in  favor  of 
Stephen  Say  re  as  sheriff  of  London,  and  by  his  eloqnence  gained  a  great 
majority  of  hands  in  favor  of  Stephen  Sayre  and  Aklerrnan  Plnnnner. 
What  strange,  impndent  Americans  !  Do  you  remember  Sayre?  He 
was  in  Virginia  some  years  ago  soliciting  tobacco  commissions,  and  did 
not  behave  well — was  in  partnership  with  Dr.  Bardt  &  Co.  (sic).  Arthur 
gained  great  applause,  says  an  English  paper  of  19lh  June."*  His  father, 
William  Lee,  was  elected,  in  1775,  alderman  on  the  Wilkes  ticket,  and 
in  a  particularly  heated  contest  was  one  of  the  two  aldermen  by  whom 
alone  Wilkes  was  sustained,  t  Arthur  Lee  was  one  of  the  counsel  for 
Stephen  Sayre,|  who  afterwards  became  his  secretary,  when  Sayre  was 
arrested  on  a  charge  of  sedition.  He  was  himself  defended  by  Wilkes 
when  be  was  charged  with  publishing  certain  letters  which  had  been 
surreptitiously  obtained. §  And  when  Beaumarchais  visited  London  he 
found  Arthur  Lee  at  certain  convivial  assemblages  presided  over  by 
Wilkes,  assemblages  which  Beaumarchais,  himself  by  no  means  squeam- 
ish, declared  to  be  ''  libertine."  1|  As  will  hereafter  be  seen,  Arthur  Lee 
took  with  him  into  public  life  some  at  least  of  the  traditions  of  the  Wilkes 
school,  and  the  same  traditions  were  not  without  their  intluence  on 
Sayre  and  William  Lee,  who  had  entered  public  life  as  the  disciples 
and  associates  of  Wilkes. 

Wilkes' evil  influence.        §  139.  That  the  school  of  whicli  Wilkes  was  the 
head  was  singularly  profligate  and  corrupt  English 
authorities  agree: 

"  Wilkes  had  till  very  lately  been  known  chiefly  as  one  of  tbe  most  most  profane, 
licentious,  and  agreeable  rakes  about  town.  He  was  a  man  of  taste,  reading,  and 
engaging  manners.  His  sprightly  conversation  was  the  delight  of  green  rooms  and 
taverns,  and  pleased  even  grave  hearers  Avhen  he  was  sufficiently  under  restraint  to 
abstain  from  detailing  the  particulars  of  hrs  amours  and  from  breaking  jests  on  the 
New  Testament.  His  expensive  debaucheries  forced  him  to  have  recourse  to  the  Jews. 
He  was  soon  a  ruined  man,  and  determined  to  try  his  chance  as  a  political  advent- 
urer."    (Macaulay's  Essay  on  Chatham;  Works,  vol.  7,  p.  241.) 

•'Wilkes  was  a  worthless  profligate,  butlae  had  a  remarkable  faculty  of  enlisting 
popular  sympathy  on  his  side;  and  l)y  a  singular  irony  of  fortune  he  became  in  the 
end  the  chief  instrument  in  bringing  about  three  of  the  greatest  advances  which  our 
constitution  has  made."     (4  Green's'  History  of  English  People,  220.) 

''When  only  twenty-two  he  married  a  rich  heiress  ten  years  older  than  himself,  of 
strict  Methodistical  principles,  from  whom  he  was  soon  after  separated,  and  whom  he 
treated  with  great  baseness.  His  countenance  was  repulsively  ugly.  His  life  was 
scandalously  and  notoriously  profligate,  and  he  was  sometimes  guilty  of  profanity 
which  exceeded  even  that  of  the  vicious  circle  in  which  he  lived,  but  he  possessed 
some  qualities  which  were  well  fitted  to  secure  success  in  life.  He  had  a  brilliant 
and  ever  ready  wit,  unflagging  spirits,  unfailing  good  humor,  great  personal  courage, 

*  28  South.  Lit.  Mess.,  184.  As  to  Sayre's  subsequent  disreiiutable  history,  see  infra, 
H  150,  192  #. 

t  Infra,  ^  174  ;  19  An.  Reg.,  154.  $  2  Wade's  Junius,  106. 

X  See  infra,  'J192.  ||  See  \^  Mag.  Amer.  History,  631. 

519 


§  140.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

mucli  shrewdness  of  judgment,  nmcli  charm  of  manner.  *  *  *  It  is  not  probable 
that  he  had  any  serious  political  convictions,  but  like  most  ambitious  men,  he  threw 
himself  into  politics  as  the  easiest  method  of  acquiring  notoriety  and  position,  and  he 
expended  many  thousands  of  pounds  in  the  venture.  *  *  *  He  took  a  prominent  part 
in  censuring  the  king's  sx)eecli  in  1761,  but  his  speaking  was  cold  and  commonplace,  and 
made  no  impression  on  the  House.  The  North  Britain  however,  which  he  founded 
in  the  following  year,  raised  him  at  once  to  importance.  It  had  little  literary  merit 
beyond  a  clear  acd  easy  style,  but  it  skillfully  reflected  and  aggravated  the  popular 
hatred  of  the  Scotch.  *  *  *  Wilkes,  after  his  release!  from  the  Tower,  had  set  up  a 
private  printing  press  in  his  own  house,  and  among  other  documents  he  had  printed 
a  parody  of  the  Essays  on  Man  called  An  Essay  on  Woman,  and  also  a  paraphrase  of 
the  Veni  Creator.  *  '^  *  Both  the  Essay  on  Woman  and  the  imitation  of  the  Veni 
Creator  were  in  a  high  degree  blasphemous  and  obscene."  (3  Lecky's  History  of  Eng- 
land, 72  J.) 

The  House  of  Lords,  before  whom  the  question  was  irregularly 
brought,  voted  the  poems  to  be  a  ^'scandalous,  obscene,  and  impious 
libel,"  and  though  the  jurisdiction  of  tlie  house  in  the  matter  has  been 
justly  questioned,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  rightfulness  of  the  opin- 
ion it  expressed. 

Wilkes  was  expelled  from  the  house,  and  when  he  was  again  returned 

from  Brentford  by  a  vote  of  1,143  to  296  for  Luttrell,  the  resolution  of 

the  house  declaring  Luttrell  to  have  been  elected  made  Wilkes  for  the 

time  the  representative  of  constitutional  rights. 

"  Few  of  the  most  illustrious  English  statesmen  have  enjoyed  a  greater  or  more 
enduring  popularity,  or  have  exercised  a  more  commanding  power.  When,  in  April, 
1770,  he  was  released  from  prison  London  was  illuminated  for  joy,  and  the  word 
'  liberty,'  in  letters  three  feet  high,  blazed  in  front  of  the  Mansion  House.  In  spite  of 
all  the  efforts  of  the  court  he  was  elected  successively  alderman  and  sheriff,  and,  after 
a  fierce  struggle  which  lasted  for  three  years,  lord  mayor,  and  then  once  more  mem- 
ber of  Parliament,  and  he  governed  with  an  almost  absolute  sway  that  city  influence 
which  was  still  one  of  the  great  forces  in  English  politics."  (3  Lecky's  History  of 
England,  143.) 

And  we  now  know  that  Willies'  ostentatious  professions  of  liberalism 
were  as  false  as  his  ostentatious  professions  of  libertinism  were  true. 

How  far  influencing  Arthur        ^  140.  Arthur  Lce's  counection  with  Wilkes  is 

Loe.  -" 

of  interest  not  only  as  explaining  some  of  Lee's 
personal  idiosyncrasies — e.  r/.,  his  recklessness  in  seizing  any  immediate 
instrument  that  might  produce  a  sensation,  his  indifference  as  to  the 
character  of  the  subordinates  he  employed,  his  daring  restlessness,  his 
prejudices  against  the  Scotch — but  as  indicating  what  may  have  been 
the  first  impulse  to  the  alienation  which  took  place  between  himself  and 
Franklin  as  soon  as  they  were  compelled  to  act  together.  Franklin  had 
a  distinguished  line  of  acquaintances  in  London,  but  they  none  of  them 
were  among  the  associates  of  Wilkes.  Franklin  naturall}^  was  much 
honored  by  the  leaders  of  physical  science,  and  in  politics  he  was  from 
time  to  time  consulted  by  Chatham  and  Burke.  But  among  those  who 
were  intimate  with  Wilkes  he  had  no  acquaintance,  and  he  seems  even 
to  have  shunned  Lord  Temple,  who  at  one  period  of  his  turbid  career 
520 


CHAP.  XU  ]  LEE.  [§  141. 

ftave  Wilkes  his  support.  Of  Wilkes  himself  he  thus  spoke :  "  I  believe 
that  had  the  king  had  a  bad  character  and  Wilkes  a  good  one,  the  lat- 
ter might  have  turned  the  former  out  of  his  kingdom,"  and  Fianklin 
in  the  strongest  way  denounced  Wilkes'  api)eal  to  the  mob  in  1708.* 
On  the  other  hand,  among  those  closely  allied  to  Franklin  not  a  single 
follower  of  Wilkes  is  to  be  found.  It  was  natural  therefore  that  the 
adherents  of  Wilkes  should  have  looked  with  resentment  on  Franklin, 
among  whose  friends  they  were  not  included,  and  who  regarded  their 
master  with  such  marked  disapproval. 

§  141.  The  first  we  hear  as  to  the  Revolution 

TbB    Colden    Lcfters:    their       „  .     ,,  ^         •      •      ^i  i      i  i      i    4.*  i 

indication  of  hostility  to    from  Artliur  Lcc  IS  lu  the  remarkable  letters  ad- 

AVashington  and  Franldin.  i     <  ,t-       ^  i.  .a  ^^    i  t         <>•>        r 

dressed  to  *' Lieutenant-Governor  Colden,"  of 
New  York,  under  date  of  February  13  and  14  and  April  15, 1770.  These 
letters  are  hereafter  given,  with  notes,  under  their  proper  dates.  The 
name  of ''  Colden,"  it  is  agreed,  was  adopted  by  Lee  in  order  to  shelter 
himself  from  exposure  in  case  of  the  letters  being  intercepted,  Colden 
being  an  uncompromising  loyalist,  though  still  in  New  York.  The 
l>robability  is,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  notes  hereafter  given,  that  the 
letters  were  trusted  to  a  messenger,  with  directions  to  give  them  to 
Samuel  Adamsor  LovelI,orsoineotherof  Arthur  Lee's  personal  friends,  t 
From  these  letters  the  following  inferences  as  to  Arthur  Lee's  position 
in  the  spring  of  1770  may  be  drawn : 

(1)  While  unquestionably,  notwithstanding  the  guarded  language  he 
felt  bound  to  use,  sympatiiizing  with  the  Colonies,  there  is  nothing  to 
show  that  this  sympathy  was  different  from  that  at  the  time  ex[)ressed 
by  liberals  of  the  Chatham  school,  as  then  represented  by  Shelburne. 

(2)  He  had  no  attachment  to  the  revolutionary  organization  as  then 
existing.  Of  that  organization,  on  its  military  side,  Washington  was 
the  head  ;  on  the  diplomatic  side,  Franklin.  In  the  remarkable  anony- 
mous memorandum  attached  to  the  first  of  these  letters  (a  memorandum 
the  authorship  of  which  by  Arthur  Lee  may  be  now  considered  as 
settled)  an  appeal  is  made  to  affect,  i"  pai't  through  the  agency  of 
Richard  H.  Lee,  the  placing  of  a  New  England  general  at  the  head  of 
the  army;  while  in  one  of  the  subsequent  letters  the  expediency  is 
suggested  of  bringing  over  and  commissioning  a  European  officer  of 
such  high  rank  as  at  least  greatly  to  embarrass  Washington.  And  to 
Franklin  specific  objection  on  personal  grounds  is  made.  Supposing 
these  letters  were  meant  for  Arthur  Lee's  particular  correspondents- 
Samuel  Adams  and  James  Lovell — in  Boston,  as  well  as  for  Richard 
H.  Lee  and  his  family  in  Virginia,  we  have  here  the  first  accessible 


*  2  Franklin's  Life  and  Writinos,  158 ;  2  Jesse's  George  III,  79. 

tThe  suggestion  of  Sparks,  indeed,  as  ^ill  be  hereafter  seen,  that  they  were  meant 
for  Franklin  seems  improbable,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  two  of  these  Franklin  is 
objected  to  as  a  member  of  the  committee  on  correspondence.  The  remarkable  way 
in  which  they  ultimately  reached  the  public  archives  is  hereafter  noted. 

521 


§§  142,  143.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

expression  of  the   adverse  combinatiou   by  wbicli   Wasbingtou  and 
Fraukliu  were  afterwards  so  much  harassed.*     - 

Inaccuracy  of  Arthur  Lee's        §  142.  According  to  a  report  of  Arthur  Lee, 

fttatemeutof  Beaumarchais'  i       i         i  •         •  i 

London  promise  of  aid.  made  oy  him  lu  a  letter  to  the   committee  ot 

foreign  affairs,  of  October  6,  1777,  as  hereafter 
given,  "about  a  year  and  a  half  ago  Beaumarchais  came  to  him  in 
London,  as  an  agent  of  this  [the  French]  court,  and  wishing  to  com- 
municate something  to  Congress,"  which  was  notice  of  an  intended 
gratuity  from  France  of  £200,000  to  Congress.  This  conversation, 
which  is  the  first  of  anything  like  a  diplomatic  character  in  which 
Arthur  Lee  appears  before  us,  became  afterwards  the  subject  of  much 
discussion,  t  and  if  it  were  reliable  might  give  a  tone  to  the  attitude  of 
France  to  us  very  different  from  that  generally  accepted.  But  the 
accuracy  of  Arthur  Lee's  memory  in  this  respect  may  be  questioned  for 
the  following  reasons:  (I)  The  improbability  that  Beaumarchais  would 
have  made  a  statement  which  was  not  only  untrue  at  the  time  but  im- 
politic, and  which,  in  any  view,  he  was  without  authority  to  mnke;  (2) 
the  improbability  that  Arthur  Lee  would  have  withheld  from  Congress 
for  eighteen  months  a  communication  so  important  as  he  must  have 
considered  this  had  he  believed  it  to  be  serious;  (3)  the  fact  that  he 
made  no  report  on  the  subject  to  his  colleagues;  (4)  the  fact  that  he 
never  made  the  alleged  promise  the  basis  of  any  application  to  the 
French  ministry;  (5)  the  fact  that  he  made  no  reference  to  this  state- 
ment in  his  subsequent  immediate  correspondence  with  Deane;  (6)  the 
fact  that  he  joined  with  the  other  commissioners  on  January  5  and  Janu- 
ary 17,  1777,  in  telling  Congress  that  the  supplies  from  France  were 
not  gratuitous,  but  were  to  be  paid  for  in  produce. 

It  must  be  kept  in  mind  also  that  Arthur  Lee,  in  his  first  letter  to 
the  committee  of  correspondence  (of  December  31,  177G)  showed  that 
he  then  held  that  wliatever  arrangements  he  then  had  made  with 
Beaumarchais  were  unofficial,  and  were  afterwards  remodeled,  before 
adoption,  by  Deane. 

That  Beaumarchais,  in  his  convivial  talks  at  Wilkes'  table,  may 
have  indulged  in  some  gasconade  as  to  what  France  would  do  for  the 
United  States  is  likely  enough;  but  for  the  reasons  above  given  there 
is  no  gronnd  now  to  believe  that  Arthur  Lee  had  any  reason  to  hold 
that  such  talk  at  such  a  time  was  a  serious  statement,  which  could  bind 
either  Beaumarchais  or  France,  |  !N"or,  according  to  what  we  gather 
from  the  next  section,  did  Arthur  Lee  occupy,  at  the  time  of  this  con- 
versation, such  an  ostensible  ofiQcial  relation  to  the  United  States  as  to 
give  Beaumarchais'  talk  with  him  anything  of  official  type. 

His  stay  in  London  in  1776.  ^  I43.    Jn    x\iq    Life   Of  Arthur    Lce,  (VOl.  1,  pp. 

55-58),  it  is  stated  that  ''in  the  winter  of  1776 
Mr.  Lee  repaired  to  Paris  by  the  direction  of  the  secret  committee  of 

*  Sec  siq)ra,  HI-  t  Siqjra,  U6\,f.  t  See  2  Parton's  Franklin,  185. 

522 


CHAP.  XII  ]  LEE.  [§  144. 

Congress  *  *  *  as  their  secret  agent  to  improve  the  favorable  dis- 
position of  France  towards  the  Colonies.  In  this  capacity  he  was  re- 
ceived and  kindly  and  respectfully  treated  by  Count  de  Vergennes. 
#  *  #  From  the  spring  of  1770  until  the  fall  of  it  Mr.  Lee  remained 
in  Paris  as  a  secret  agent  of  Congress,"  and  his  ex[)Ioits  in  that  jjosi- 
tion  are  then  narrated  in  detail.  But,  as  i.s  rightly  stated  by  Sparks  in 
an  article  in  the  North  American  Review  for  Ai)ril,  1830,  (v^ol.  30,  p.  489), 
Arthur  Lee,  at  the  period  so  designated,  '•  did  not  go  at  all  to  Paris  by 
order  of  the  committee  or  as  a  secret  agent."  It  was  not,  as  the  corre- 
spondence hereafter  will  show,  until  August  22,  1770,  when  Deane  was 
already  in  Paris  as  the  then  exclusive  agent  of  Congress,  that  he  wrote 
to  Vergennes  to  say  that  "I  was  this  morning  informed  of  the  arrival  of 
Mr.  Arthur  Lee,  and  that  he  would  be  in  Paris  to-morrow.  This  was 
sur))rising  to  me,  as  I  knew  of  no  particular  affair  that  might  bring 
liim  here."  It  appears  also  from  letters  then  written  by  Arthur  Lee, 
to  be  hereafter  given,  that  on  March  19,  April  15,  June  3,  July  G,  he 
was  in  London,  while  on  June  14  and  June  20  letters  were  addressed 
by  Beaumarchais  to  him  in  that  city,  Lee  then  taking  the  fictitious  name 
of  Mary  Johnston.  On  July  18  Beaumarchais  wrote  to  Deane  that  Lee 
was  in  London,  and  on  August  10  Deane,  in  Paris,  wrote  to  Philadel- 
phia of  a  letter  from  Arthur  Lee  evidently  at  London.  On  August 
3  Arthur  Lee  wrote  from  London  to  Dumas.  On  August  22,  as  above 
stated,  Arthur  Lee  was  in  Paris,  but  remained  there  but  a  few  days,  and 
then  returned,  his  brother  William  taking  his  place  as  London  cor- 
respondent of  Congress.  On  September  23  and  November  15  Arthur 
Lee  was  in  London  j  and  it  was  not  until  December  23  that  we  have  a 
letter  from  him  dated  in  Paris.  In  this  letter,  hereafter  given,  which 
was  sent  after  his  reception  of  the  appointment  of  envoy  from  Congress 
in  Paris,  he  announced  to  Lord  Shelburne  his  determination  to  leave 
''a  country  where  from  choice  I  had  fixed  my  fortunes,"  and  to  joiu 
Franklin,  whom  he  calls  at  this  time  "our  Pater  Patriae,"  in  the  lega- 
tion at  Paris. 

Of  Arthur  Lee's  duties  in  London  in  1770  down  to  December,  when 
be  went  to  Paris,  we  have  no  definite  information.  He  still  continued 
to  rank,  w^e  may  gather  from  his  correspondence,  among  the  distinctive 
followers  of  Shelburne,  while  his  letters  to  Congress,  in  response  to 
their  request  for  information,  were  rare. 

His  adhesion  to  "  militia "        s  144.  We  havc  sccu   that  uudcr  what  Adams 

diplomacy.  ^ 

called  the  "  militia"  system  of  diplomacy  it  was 
thought  proper  for  the  young  republic  to  send  ministers  to  demand 
recognition  and  loans  from  foreign  courts  without  first  inquiring  whether 
such  ministers  would  be  received,  and  in  fact  when,  in  the  ordinary 
policy  governing  the  intercourse  of  nations,  there  was  every  probability 
that  they  would  be  repelled.*     The  most  iudefiitigable  advocate  and 

*  Sec  supra,  ^  ^  15,  106. 

523 


§  144.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

expoTieut  of  this  system  was  Arthur  Lee.  Personally,  and  through  his 
brother  Ilichard  H.  Lee,  aud  his  friend  Samuel  Adams,  he  urged 
against  the  counsels  of  Franklin  and  the  advice  of  Vergennes  that 
envoys  should  thus  be  sent  out  to  obtain  recognition  and  funds ;  aud 
for  this  purpose  he  and  his  brother  William  Lee  were  commissioned 
to  the  courts  of  Madrid,  of  Berlin,  and  of  Vienna.  The  ignominious 
failure  of  the  experiment  showed  both  how  erroneous  was  the  policy  on 
which  it  was  based,  and  how  injudicious  were  the  steps  taken  to  carry 
it  into  effect.  Arthur  Lee  made  his  first  attempt  on  Madrid,  though 
he  was  advised  informall}^,  through  the  Spanish  minister  in  France, 
that  he  would  not  be  received.  As  soon  as  it  was  discovered  in  Madrid 
that  he  had  entered  Spain  he  was  ordered  back,  in  terms  made  the 
more  humiliating  from  the  frivolousness  of  the  reasons  on  which  they 
rested.  He  lingered,  and  the  orders  for  him  to  leave  became  more  per- 
emptory, until  at  last  it  became  obvious  to  him  that  he  would  not  be 
even  permitted  to  reach  the  capital.     He  then  returned  to  Paris.* 

In  Berlin,  to  which  capital  he  succeeded  in  penetrating,  he  was  sub- 
jected to  the  insult  of  having  the  theft  of  his  papers,  by  order  of  the 
British  minister,  treated  by  Frederick  the  Great  as  something  not  to  be 
redressed,  on  the  ground  that  Arthur  Lee  was  an  unwelcome  intruder, 
without  any  diplomatic  privileges  whatsoever,  though  Frederick  had 
l)reviously  acknowledged  the  United  States  as  belligerents,  and  though, 
therefore,  envoys  from  the  United  States  were,  personal  reasons  being 
set  aside,  entitled  to  diplomatic  protection,  as  was  afterwards  main- 
tained by  Great  Britain  herself  at  the  time  of  the  capture  of  Mason  and 
Slidell.  t  Nor  was  there  ever  an  official  letter  declining  to  receive  a 
minister  couched  in  terms  more  contemptuously  repellant  than  that  in 
which  Frederick  told  Arthur  Lee  that  he  did  not  want  to  be  any  more 
troubled  with  applications  for  recognition  as  minister  of  the  United 
States.  I  Had  the  advice  of  Frauklin  and  Vergennes  been  followed 
these  repulses  would  not  have  occurred,  since  no  minister  would  have 
been  sent  to  Berlin  or  j\[adrid  until  his  reception  had  been  previously 
assented  to.  And  if  these  rules  of  considerateness  and  courtesy  in 
diplomatic  intercourse  i>rescribed  by  diplomatic  usage  had  been  followed 
by  Arthur  Lee  in  his  dealings  with  Vergennes  he  would  not  have  ex- 
cluded himself,  supposing  there  had  been  no  other  objections  to  him, 
from  that  informal  social  intercourse  with  that  minister  which  Franklin 

*  In  dispatches  from  Grantham,  British  minister  at  Madrid,  to  Weymouth,  secretary 
of  state,  Marcli  17,  March  20,  1777,  Florida-Blanca  is  reported  to  liave  chuckled  in  a 
conversation  with  Grantham  over  Artliur  Lee's  stoppage  in  his  attempts  to  reach 
Madrid.  "  From  M.  de  Grimaldi's  account  of  him  he  speaks  nothing  but  English,  and 
is  represented  as  an  obstinate  man."  "  Tlie  court  is  resolved  to  give  no  countenance 
to  such  attempts." 

t  See  sujyra,  vn  91 ;  Arthur  Lee's  letter  to  the  commissioners  of  June  28,  1777,  infra, 
with  note  giving  comments,  with  views  of  Carlisle  aud  Wraxall ;  aud  see  infra,  ^  193. 

X  See  infra,  ^  175  ;  siqyra,   ^S  91. 

524 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  [§  145. 

enjoyed,  and  which  Arthur  Lee,  if  he  had  chosen,  couUl  readily  have 
possessed.  But  such  was  the  irritation  produced  by  his  habitual  dis- 
courtesy, and  the  distrust  produced  by  the  disreputable  character  and 
suspicious  dealings  of  his  secretaries,  that  Ver«^ennes,  always  patient 
and  considerate,  felt  bound  to  interpose,  and  on  October  29,  1778, 
wrote  to  Gerard,  the  Frencli  minister  at  PhiUidelphia,  that  his  fear  of 
Lee  and  of  his  surioundings  (ses  entoiirs)  precluded  the  communica- 
tion to  him  of  state  secrets;  and  Gerard  was  further  instructed  to 
inform  Congress  tliat  Arthur  Lee'S  conduct  had  "  created  the  highest 
disgust "  in  the  courts  of  France  and  of  Spain,  and  that  neither  court  had 
that  confidence  in  him  "necessary  to  give  success  to  the  negotiations 
of  a  foreign  minister."  This  message  was  communicated  by  Geraid  to 
Paca  and  Drayton,  members  of  Congress,  and  by  theiulaid  before  Con- 
gress in  a  letter  hereafter  given  under  date  of  April  30,  1779.  Under 
the  same  month  and  those  immediately  following  are  given  the  con- 
gressional proceedings  in  reference  to  Arthur  Lee's  recall. 

^Aniuf/Leel'^'dNffi^^^^^^  ^  ^'^^'  ^^^  ^^^'^^  portiou  of  the  following  volumes 

ties  withErankiiu.  which  dcals  with  the  period  of  Arthur  Lee's  diplo- 

matic functions  in  Europe  much  space  will  be 
taken  up  with  his  attacks  on  Franklin,  and  Ihenatureof  his  dift'erences 
with  Franklin  are  elsewhere  discussed.*  Tlie  topic,  therefore,  can  not 
be  avoided  ;  and  before  entering  on  it  it  may  be  proper  to  state  what 
is  the  prevalent  opinion  among  historical  critics  on  this  question. 

Of  American  critics  who  have  discussed  our  revolutionary  diplomatic 
history  no  one  was  more  familiar  with  the  then  accessible  parts  of  that 
history  than  Sparks,  and  no  one,  in  view  of  Arthur  Lee's  avowed  attach- 
ment to  New  England  men  and  his  close  relations  to  the  Massachusetts 
delegation  in  Congress,  would  be  regarded  on  sectional  grounds  as 
likely  to  be  more  impartial.  And  of  Arthur  Lee  Sparks  thus  speaks 
in  the  North  American  Review  for  April,  1830  (vol.  30,  p.  495,  ff.) : 

"Sanguine  in  temperament,  credulous,  hasty  in  action,  he  yielded  with  a  weakness 
altogether  nupardouahle  to  the  corroding  inllueuces  of  suspicion,  jealousy,  and  dis- 
trust. This  habitude  of  mind,  which  seemed  an  inherent  qualitj^,  drew  him  into 
endless  disputes  and  diftlculties.  He  describes  himself  very  truly  when  he  says, 
'  Unhappily  my  fate  has  thrown  mo  into  public  life,  and  the  impatience  of  my  nature 
makes  me  embark  in  it  with  an  impetuosity  and  imprudence  which  increase  the  evils 
to  which  it  is  necessarily  subject.'  Aversions,  discords,  enmities,  grew  up  and 
thickened  around  him  as  he  advanced  iu  his  public  career,  which,  at  the  same  time 
they  annoyed  his  own  peace,  fed  the  flame  of  party  already  too  rife  in  our  national 
councils,  and  helped  to  oi)en  breaches  and  perpetuate  divisions  which  operated  with 
a  pernicious  tendency  to  the  end  of  t)ie  war.     These  effects  of  the  infirmities  of  Mr. 


*  See  Lee's  Life  of  Arthur  Lee  and  the  editions  of  Franklin's  works  by  Sparks  and 
Bigelow.  The  attacks  on  Franklin  by  the  Lees  and  Izard,  which  are  necessarily 
admitted  in  the  following  volumes,  and  which  are  also  from  time  to  time  independ- 
ently published,  give,  in  fact,  so  erroneous  a  view  both  of  Franklin  and  of  our  revo- 
lutionary diplomacy,  that  in  a  work  on  that  diplomacy  they  can  not  be  introduced 
without  an  examination  of  the  charges  they  contain. 

525 


§  1 45.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

Lee's  temper  ou  the  public  interests  and  transactions  of  the  time  make  it  necessary 
to  touch  upon  incidents  which  might  otherwise  perhaps  be  passed  over  without  essen- 
tial detriment  to  the  claims  of  justice,  the  cause  of  impartial  history,  or  the  honor  of 
human  nature. 

''No  one  who  examines  the  subject  can  doubt  that  Mr.  Lee's  quarrels  with  Deane, 
his  hostility  to  Franklin,  and  his  disputes  with  everybody,  a  select  few  only  excepted, 
were  the  primary  causes  of  the  warm  altercations  and  endless  perplexities  which 
distracted  Ihe  deliberations  of  Congress  on  foreign  affairs  during  two  or  three  years 
of  the  most  anxious  period  of  the  Revolution,  till  Congress  by  a  large  majority 
passed  a  resolution,  which  certainly  does  not  adorn  the  brightest  page  of  their  jour- 
nals, '  that  suspicions  and  animosities  have  arisen  among  the  late  and  present  com- 
missioners highly  prt^judicial  to  the  honor  and  interests  of  the  United  States.'  It 
would  be  hard  to  put  all  this  to  Mr.  Lee's  account,  nor  do  we  intend  it;  but  we  do 
say,  that  he  was  the  primary  and  most  efficient  actor  in  a  train  of  events  which  pro- 
duced these  consequences. 

''The  warfare  commenced  at  an  early  date  between  Lee  and  Deane,  and  the  first 
spark  of  the  kindling  dame  was  a  spark  of  jealousy.  Oar  readers  will  remember  the 
interview  between  Mr.  Lee  and  Beaumarchais  in  London,  and  the  plan  concerted 
between  them  for  sending  two  hundred  thousand  nouuds  sterling  to  the  aid  of  the 
Colonies.  When  Beaumarchais  left  Loudon  Mr.  Lee  seemed  to  consider  this  plan  as 
matured,  and  that  it  would  be  executed  in  conformity  wuth  their  arrangements.  He 
gave  notice  accordingly  to  the  committee  of  secret  correspontlence,  and  letters  passed 
between  him  and  Beaumarchais  on  the  subject.  While  the  affair  was  in  this  favor- 
able train,  as  he  supposed,  Deane  arrived  in  Paris,  and  Beaumarchais,  abandoning 
his  first  project,  made  new  arrangements  with  this  agent,  and  prepared  to  send  the 
supplies  through  channels  quite  different  from  those  heretofore  suggested.  By  this 
scheme  also  Mr.  Lee's  agency  was  entirely  dispensed  with.  This  turn  of  the  business 
was  not  relished  bj'  Lee,  since  it  deprived  him  of  the  merit  and  honor  of  being  the 
medium  through  which  supplies  so  bountiful  and  seasonable  v/ere  transmitted  to  his 
country,  and  of  the  estimation  which  such  an  event  would  procure  for  him  in  the 
eyes  of  Congress.  He  hastened  over  to  Paris,  and  from  the  extract  of  a  letter  to 
Count  de  Vergeunes,  which  we  have  already  quoted,  we  learn  the  humor  in  which 
Deane  was  disposed  to  receive  him.  As  Deane  had  been  led  into  the  engagements 
with  Beaumarchais  at  the  solicitation  of  this  gentleman,  without  knowing  what  had 
been  done  in  London,  he  looked  upon  Lee's  interference  as  officious,  and  was  evidently 
not  in  a  mood  to  receive  or  treat  him  with  much  cordiality.  At  all  events,  their  inter- 
views in  Paris  produced  anything  but  friendship,  and  Mr.  Lee  returned  to  London 
■without  effecting  any  change  in  the  scheme  which  had  been  agreed  upon  between 
Beaumarchais  and  Deane.  Thus  were  sown  the  first  seeds  of  discord  which  after- 
wards attained  so  rank  a  growth  among  the  agents  of  the  United  States  abroad  and 
their  friends  at  home. 

"  About  three  mouths  afterwards  Mr.  Lee  went  back  to  Paris  and  joined  Franklin 
and  Deaneas  one  of  the  three  commissioners  from  Congress.  Nothing  had  occurred  in 
the  interim  to  subdue  or  quell  the  feud  that  had  previously  begun,  and  it  was  now 
increased  by  the  circumstances  of  the  moment.  Just  at  this  time  Beaumarchais  was  in 
great  embarrassment  on  account  of  the  obstacles  thrown  in  his  way  by  the  govern- 
ment, to  prevent  his  shipping  the  articles  which  ho  had  got  in  readiness  and  for 
the  transportation  of  which  vessels  had  been  chartered  and  were  retained  at  a  large 
expense.  Mr.  Lee  showed  no  sympathy  with  Deane  on  this  occasion,  and  perhaps  it 
was  natural  enough  as  things  had  turned  out  that  he  should  be  quite  willing  to  let 
the  responsibility  and  vexation  of  the  enterprise  rest  on  his  colleague,  who  was  to 
share  all  the  honor  of  its  success.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  Deane  had  any  unwilling- 
ness to  endure  the  one  for  the  sake  of  the  other.  Hence  each  had  his  consolation  in 
his  own  way,  but  drawn  from  sources  so  widely  asunder  as  to  afford  but  a  discourag- 

526 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  §  145. 

iny;  prospect  of  a  speedy  uiiiou  of  sentiinout  or  fooling-  between  these  two  rival  coni- 
uiissiouers. 

"At  length  Mr.  Lee  went  to  Spain,  and  Franklin  and  Deane  remained  in  charge  of 
affairs  at  Paris.  As  the  mercantile  transactions  had  been  in  the  hands  of  Deane  from 
the  beginning,  and  as  he  was  the  only  commissioner  acqnainted  with  them  in  detail, 
he  was  still  considered  as  the  fittest  of  the  three  to  liave  a  chief  control  of  this  depart- 
ment. Franklin  made  no  pretension  to  a  knowledge  of  mercantile  matters,  and  Mr. 
Lee's  habits  had  been  as  little  in  this  line  as  his  own,  whereas  Deane  was  a  practical 
merchant.  By  reason  of  Mr.  Lee's  visits  to  Spain  and  Prussia  he  was  absent  from 
Paris  a  large  portion  of  the  time  during  the  first  seven  months  after  the  meeting  of 
the  commissioners.  It  is  impossible  therefore  that  he  should  be  well  versed  in  their 
proceedings,  or  know  the  reasons  and  motives  by  which  his  colleagues  were  guided  in 
any  particular  aut  or  determination;  and  more  esjjecially  as  he  and  Mr.  Deane  had 
been  on  such  terms  from  the  oufset  as  to  forbid  any  explanatory  intercommunications 
of  this  sort  between  them. 

"Another  ingredient  in  the  cup  of  calamity  Mr.  Lee  found,  or  imagined  he  found, 
on  his  return  from  Prussia.  Mr.  Deane's  visits  to  Versailles  were  frequent,  which 
indicated  that  he  was  well  received  by  the  ministers;  his  residence  in  Paris  had  pro- 
cured him  man}^  acquaintances  among  persons  of  eminence,  which  brought  him 
into  notice  and  gave  him  consequence  ;  his  mercantile  transactions  had  connected 
him  with  persons  of  business  and  opened  a  wide  heltl  of  correspondence,  which  also 
contributed  to  his  importance.  Mr.  Leo  was  comparatively  a  stranger  and  had  none 
of  these  advantages  ;  and  what  was  jfrobably  keenly  felt  by  a  temper  so  sensitive  as 
his,  Deane  made  it  no  point  of  delicacy  to  place  himself  on  as  high  a  pedestal  as  his 
good  fortune  enabled  him  to  mount,  leaving  his  less  favored  colleague  to  stand  in 
such  a  niche  as  he  could  find  at  hand.  No  courtesy  or  good-will  was  lost  on  either 
side.  Deane  was  by  nature  formal,  cold,  slow,  and  fond  of  parade;  Lee  was  ardent, 
rapid,  eager,  and  regardless  of  forms  where  he  could  come  quickly  to  the  reality 
and  the  substance.  It  is  obvious  that  there  (^ould  be  no  commingling  of  such  prin- 
ciples as  these,  and  the  more  closely  they  were  brought  in  contact  the  greater  would 
be  the  strife  of  the  discordant  elements. 

"Itwasnow^  that  the  characteristic  foible  of  Mr.  Lee  began  to  show  itself.  He 
conceived  the  notion  that  all  the  friends  of  Deane  must  be  his  enemies.  Then  came 
over  his  mind  strange  visions  of  plots  and  intrigues  and  combinations  formed  to  mar 
his  peace,  d^efaine  his  character,  and  injure  his  reputation.  He  believed  it  was  a  part 
of  the  business  of  this  knot  of  adversaries  to  write  paragraphs  to  his  discredit  and 
procure  their  insertion  in  the  European  gazettes  and  to  take  care  that  they  were 
repeated  in  the  American  papers.  He  conceived  them  to  be  busy  also  in  writing 
letters  of  the  same  purport,  and  thus  to  be  infusing  a  poison  not  only  into  the  public 
mind,  but  into  the  mind  of  individu;ils  whoso  good  opinion  was  important  to  his 
fame  and  success.  At  the  head  of  this  formidable  league  in  his  imagination  was 
placed  Mr.  Deane,  by  whoso  arts  and  machinations  it  had  been  brought  into  being 
while  he  was  absent  in  Prussia.     *     *     ^ 

"  It  seems  to  us  that  there  is  another  and  much  deeper  cause  of  the  settled  enmity 
of  Mr.  Lee  to  Dr.  Franklin,  which  he  never  pretended  to  conceal  in  conversation,  or 
in  writing  to  his  friends,  after  he  had  been  a  few  months  in  Paris.  It  is  well  known 
that  all  of  his  interest  and  that  of  his  friends  in  Congress  were  used  to  procure  Dr. 
Franklin's  recall  from  France,  with  the  view  of  securing  Mr.  Lee's  appointment  in 
his  stead.  His  letters  were  tilled  with  censures  of  Franklin's  conduct,  boldly  affirm- 
ing his  unfitness  for  such  a  station,  and  at  all  events  recommending  that,  if  it  was 
impossible  to  effect  his  recall,  he  should  be  sent  to  an  interior  government,  where  he 
could  do  neither  harm  nor  good.  A  few  paragraphs  from  Mr.  Lee's  letters  will  set  this 
subject  in  a  clearer  light.  To  Samuel  Adams  he  writes,  on  the  4th  of  October,  1777: 
*  I  have  within  this  year  been  at  the  several  courts  of  Spain,  Vienna,  and  Berlin,  and 

527 


§  145.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

I  find  this  of  Fraace  the  great  wheel  that  moves  them  all.  Here,  therefore,  the  most 
activity  is  requisite,  and  if  it  sliouldever  be  a  question  in  Congress  about  my  destina- 
tion, I  should  be  much  obliged  to  you  for  remembering  that  I  should  prefer  being  at  the  court  of 
France.'  (Life,  vol.  2,  p.  113.)  Again,  on  tlie  same  day  be  writes  to  his  brother,  Rich- 
ard Henry  Lee,  then  in  Congress :  '  My  idea  of  adapting  characters  and  places  is  this : 
Dr.  Franlclin  to  Vienna,  as  the  first,  most  respectable,  and  quid  ;  *  Mr.  Deane  to  Holland  ; 
and  the  alderman  (William  Lee)  to  Berlin,  as  the  commercial  department;  Mr.  Izard 
■where  he  is;  Mr.  Jennings  at  Madrid,  his  reserve  and  circumspection  being  excel- 
lently adapted  to  that  court.  France  remains  the  center  of  political  activity,  and 
here,  therefore,  I  should  choose  to  be  eiiployetl.'  (p.  115.)  Again,  to  Richard  Henry 
Lee:  'Things  go  on  ^^"orse  and  worse  every  day  among  ourselves,  and  my  situation  is 
more  painful.  I  see  in  every  department  neglect,  dissipation,  and  private  schemes. 
Being  in  trust  here,  I  am  responsible  for  what  I  can  not  jirevent,  and  these  very  men 
will  probably  be  the  instruments  of  having  me  called  to  account  one  day  for  their 
misdeeds.  There  is  but  one  way  of  redressing  this  and  remedying  the  public  evil,  that 
is  the  plan  I  before  sent  you,  of  appointing  the  doctor,  honoris  causa,  to  Vienna, 
Mr.  Deane  to  Holland,  Mr,  Jennings  to  Madrid,  and  having  me  here.  In  that  case  I 
should  bave  it  in  my  power  to  call  those  to  an  account  through  whose  hands  I  know  the 
public  money  has  passed,  and  which  will  either  never  be  accounted  for,  or  misac- 
counted  for  by  connivance  of  those  who  are  to  share  in  the  public  plunder.'     (p.  127.) 

*'  Here  truly  is  a  most  persuasive  argament  for  Congress  to  make  Mr.  Lee  minister 
to  France.  What  a  frightful  picture  is  hero  drawn  of  the  mismanagement,  disorders, 
and  distracted  condition  of  tiie  American  affairs  at  that  court,  and  what  de])lorable 
consequences  must  ensue  unless  that  '07ie  ^vay'  is  resorted  to,  of  sending  Dr.  Franklin 
to  the  capital  of  Austria,  and  setting  Mr.  Lee  to  turn  the  '  great  wheeV  at  Paris,  by 
the  magical  movements  of  which,  under  his  control,  an  infallible  remedy  will  be 
applied  and  a  radical  reform  suddenly  effected. 

''In  another  letter  to  Samuel  Adams  the  same  alluring  prospect  is  again  held  out 
on  the  easy  conditions  only  of  the  same  arrangement:  'If  Mr.  Lloyd  is  appointed 
agent.  Dr.  Franklin  sent  to  Vienna,  Mr.  Deane  to  Holland,  and  I  am  left  here,  we  shall 
all  act  in  concert,  and  not  only  have  a  full  inquiry  made  into  the  expenditure  of  the 
public  money,  but  establish  that  order,  decency,  and  regularity  which  are  lately  ban- 
ished from  the  public  business  at  present,  S3  as  to  involve  us  in  continual  confusion 
and  expense.'  (p.  137.)  Here  we  have  the  same  modesty  in  the  proposal,  and  the 
same  temptation  to  comply  with  it.  But  we  shall  not  tax  our  readers  with  remarks 
on  these  extracts.  Their  language  and  their  ^lurpose  are  but  too  plain.  We  need 
not  even  ask  whether  a  man  with  such  designs  in  his  head  is  to  be  credited  for 
immaculate  disinterestedness  in  representing  the  disabilities  or  disqualifications  of  a 
public  officer  whom  he  is  thus  covertly  attempting  to  undermine  and  supersede.  Nor 
need  we  ask  whether  the  vague  charges  of  a  man  under  such  a  bias,  unless  accompa- 
nied with  proofs  bearing  the  marks  of  truth  as  if  written  with  a  sunbeam,  ought  to 
weigh  with  a  considerate  mind  more  than  a  feather  or  a  straw.  Mr.  Lee  abounds 
with  charges,  but  seldom  with  facts  to  support  them.  In  the  above  extracts,  for 
instance,  he  charges  somebody  with  neglect  of  duty,  dissipation,  private  schemes,  mis- 
deeds, public  x^lunder,  and  other  heinous  misdemeanors.  But  tvlio  is  ilf  That  is  a 
secret  which  he  keeps  to  himself.  Where  were  these  acts  committed ;  when,  how, 
and  to  Avhat  end?  This  is  all  a  secret,  and  you  are  left  to  conjecture,  suspect,  and 
wonder.  The  only  thing  of  which  you  are  made  positively  certain  is  that  if  Dr. 
Franklin  can  be  got  off  to  the  quiet  retreat  of  Vienna  and  Mr.  Lee  is  left  to  control 
attairs  in  the  bustling  world  of  Paris  all  disorders  will  cease,  and  a  new  era  will  com- 
mence in  the  young  annals  of  American  diplomacy." 

Tucker,  in  a  note  to  his  Life  of  Jefferson,  1, 166,  speaks  of  Arthur  Lee  as  "  singularly 

*  See  supra,  $  126. 
528 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  [§  145. 

impracticable  in  his  tciiiper  and  disposition;"  adding,  ''  Lie  seems  to  have  been  one 
of  those  who  rarely  lose  au  opportuuitv  of  complaint,  or  censure,  or  contradiction." 

Ml".  Bancroft,  in  his  history,  thns  writes: 

"  The  United  States  were  to  be  represented  in  Franco  to  its  people  and  to  the  ehler 
bouse  of  Bourbon  by  a  treacherous  merchant,  by  a  barrister  who,  otherwise  a  patriot, 
was  consumed  by  malignant  onvy,  and  by  Franklin,  the  greatest  diplomatist  of  his 
century."     (9  Bancroft's  United  States,  133.) 

By  Hildreth*  Arthur  Lee  is  spoken  of  as  an  ''  unquiet,  envious,  irritable,  and  sus- 
picious man,  very  anxious  to  obtain  for  himself  the  sole  management  of  the  mission." 

Lomcuic  (185G),  a  member  of  the  French  Institute,  in  the  work  already  cited  (3  Beau- 
marchais  and  His  Times  (English  translation)  133),  writes: 

'*  Having  had  occasion  to  study  closely  the  works  of  the  American  deputation  at 
Paris,  we  can  affirm  that  Arthur  Lee's  assistance  was  very  insignificant,  that  he  had 
no  credit  with  the  French  Government,  which  suspected  him  either  rightly  or  wrongly 
of  having  secret  connections  with  the  English  Government,  and  that  he  really  played 
in  connection  with  it  the  part  of  the  lly  in  the  fable  of  '  La  Mouche  du  Coche.'  This 
perfectly  explains  his  permanent  irritation  against  his  two  colleagues." 

By  Schlosser,  in  his  History  of  the  Eighteenth  Century,  it  is  said  : 

''  Silas  Deane  was  soon  recalled  by  Congress,  and  Lee  had  made  himself  an  object 
of  suspicion  and  hatred,  although  from  very  different  causes.  The  whole  rested  upon 
Franklin  and  every  one  regarded  him  as  the  image  of  that  ideal  and  poetic  democracy 
which  Rousseau  had  so  charmingly  described."  (6  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  ed., 
141.) 

Mr.  Partou's  criticism  is  as  follows  : 

"Of  Arthur  Lee  posterity  will  know  little  more  than  that  he  was  the  enemy 
of  Franklin.  Unless  the  reader  of  these  lines  is  an  exceptionally  well-informed  or  an 
exceptionally  ill-informed  person,  there  is  in  his  mind  at  this  moment  a  lurking  dis- 
trust of  Franklin's  absolute  sincerity  which  could  be  traced  back  through  various 
channels  of  calumny  to  the  peculiarly  constituted  brain  of  Arthur  Lee."  (  2  Parton's 
Franklin,  12.) 

''  The  great  defect  of  his  character  was  an  extreme  and  morbid  propensity  to  think 
ill  of  other  men's  motives.  *  *  *  Even  John  Adams,  his  particular  friend,  himself 
too  prone  to  suspicion,  admitted  that  Arthur  Lee  'had  confidence  in  nobody,  believed 
all  men  selfish,  and  no  man  honest  or  sincere.'  "  (Id-,  p.  14,  citing  3  John  Adams'  Life, 
etc.,  188.)  In  this  we  find  the  training  of  Wilkes,  one  of  whose  maximsit  v»'as  tohold 
professions  of  morality  and  of  high  political  principle  in  others  to  be  as  false  as  he  con- 
fessed they  were  when  made  by  himself,  and  to  treat  selfishness  as  the  governing 
principle  inhuman  nature  and  hypociisy  as  the  normal  condition. t 

Donioi,  who  in  the  preparation  of  his  elaborate  work  entitled  La  participation  de 
la  France  a  I'etablissement  des  Etats-Uuis,  of  which  the  first  two  volumes  were 
published  in  1886,  had  the  advantage  of  being  the  first  historian  to  have  access  to  the 
entire  French  archives  of  that  period,  thus  writes  : 

"In  concert  with  the  secret  agent  whom  Franklin  had  left  in  his  place  at  that 
capital,  he  had  prepared  the  way  for  an  active  participation  by  the  government  of  the 
king  in  the  resistance  of  the  insurgents.  This  agent,  a  Virginian  named  Arthur  Lee, 
was  studying  for  the  bar  in  England  when  the  celebrated  American  left  that  countr3^ 
He  had  made  something  of  an  impression  on  him  by  the  active  zeal  he  manifested,  but 
scarcely  deserved  the  great  confidence  which  the  Versailles  intermediary  and  other 
friends  of  America  x>laced  in  him.  The  spies  of  the  foreign  office  had  access  to  him, 
and  he  will  afterwards  introduce  them  even  to  M.  de  Vergenncs.  But  the  Philadelphia 
committee  of  secret  corresi)ondence  had  hastened  to  communicate  with  him,  so  that 
Wilkes,  the  parliamentary  opposition,  all  whom  were  occupied  or  animated  with  the 
idea  of  8upx)ortiug  the  Colonies,  sought  information  of  him,  gave  it  to  him,  and  re- 

*  3  History  of  the  United  States,  Ist  series,  267.  t  See  supra,  $  139, 

M  WH  529 


§  146.]  DIPLOxMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

garded  bim  as  tbe  actually  antliorized  representative  of  llie  iiisurrectiouary  Colouies. 
Beauniarchais  had  therefore  returned,  very  auxious  to  carry  out  what  he  had  been  per- 
mitted to  begin.''     (1  Douiol,  368.) 

And  afterwards : 

"  Quant  a  Arthur  Lee,  on  le  teuait  en  dehors  le  plus  possible,  son  ambition  envieuse 
et  brouilloune  rendant  facheux  de  I'employer,  et  ses  proc^des  iusidieux  I'ayant  d^ja 
rais  assez  mal  avec  ses  deux  coUegues  pour  que  Franklin  ue  tardat  guere  a  Ini 
declarer  la  mediocre  estiiue  des  laquelle  il  letenait." 

This  may  bo  translated  as  follows: 

''As  for  Arthur  Lee,  he  was  kept  as  far  as  possible  outside  (probably  out  of  the 
negotiations,  business,  or  aftair),  his  envious  and  quarrelsome  ambition  rendering  it 
disagreeable  to  employ  him,  and  his  insidious  course  having  already  placed  him  on  such 
bad  terms  with  his  two  colleagues  that  Franklin  did  not  hesitate  to  inform  him  of  the 
moderate  esteem  he  entertained  for  him." 

In  1  Hale's  Franklin  in  France  (Boston,  1887,  pp.  41-43),  a  work  marked  as  much  by 
literary  skill  as  by  historical  research,  it  is  said  that  Arthur  Lee  "caused  as  much 
trouble  to  his  fellow  commissioners,  first  and  last,  *  *  *  as  did  the  backwardness 
of  the  French  ministry,  the  zeal  of  the  British  cruisers,  the  laxity  of  the  overpressed 
Continental  Congress  across  the  water,  and  the  low  state  of  American  credit  all  put 
together.  *  *  *  He  ^as  one  of  those  characters  which,  though  probably  reason- 
able enough  to  their  possessors,  seem  toothers  to  be  almost  miraculous  in  their  little- 
ness and  meanness.  *  *  *  He  hated  Franklin  on  his  arrival  because,  on  account 
of  the  wildly  enthusiastic  welcome  accorded  the  sage,  ho  himself  seemed  to  be  re- 
duced from  first  and  second  place  to  third  or  even  fourth.  He  was  angry  with  the 
French  for  not  being  sufficiently  forward;  with  the  Spaniards  for  being  very  back- 
ward. His  own  undertakings  had  all  been  unsuccessful.  If  we  consider  the  effect 
of  all  this  upon  a  wildly  nmbitious  but  still  very  cramped,  narrow,  and  envious 
nature,  we  shall  easily  evolve  Arthur  Lee's  behavior." 

The  dispatches  and  letters  of  Arthur  Lee  and  Izard,  giving  their  viewof  their  con- 
troversies with  Franklin,  which  began  shortly  after  Lee's  arrival  in  Paris  and  con- 
tinued until  his  withdrawal  from  the  legation,  are  hereafter  given ;  and  with  them 
is  now  published  the  action  of  Congress  which  followed.  It  is  enough  now  to  say 
that  Congress  at  first  wavered  under  the  shock  reported  in  these  papers. 

Gerard,  then  French  minister  at  Philadelphia,  reported  to  Vergennes  the  dangers 
of  the  crisis,  which  he  considered  himself  as  being  not  without  merit  in  surmounting. 
"The  stories,"  he  said,  ''of  Mr.  Arthur  Lee  are  but  an  absurd  tissue  of  falsehoods 
and  sarcasms,  which  can  only  compromise  those  who  have  the  misfortune  of  being 
obliged  to  have  any  correspondence  with  him.  Permit  me,  monseigneur,  to  congratu- 
late myself  at  least  on  having  relieved  you  of  this  burden."  And  in  another  note: 
"I  explained  myself  (to  the  committee)  gradually'',  and  not  until  the  very  moment 
when  it  was  indispensable,  to  prevent  this  dangerous  and  bad  man  (Arthur  Lee)  from 
replacing  Fiankiin,  and  being  at  the  same  time  charged  with  the  negotiations  with 
Spain.  I  can  not  conceal  from  you  that  I  rejoice  every  day  more  and  more  in  having 
been  able  to  prevent  this  misfortune."  * 

The  congressional  action  on  the  dissensions  in  the  legation  are  hereafter  detailed 
under  their  proper  dates,  t 

His  jealousies,  ainouuting  to        §  146,  The  politics,  both  foreiffii  find  domestic, 

moiioiuania,  innucncing  bis  j  x  7  o  7 

family  aud  friends.  of  the  Eevolutioii  caii  iiot  be  fully  uuderstood 

without  taking  into  consideration  the  monoma- 
nial  character  of  Arthur  Lee's  political  jealousies  and  the  influences 
they  had  on  his  family  and  on  the  political  friends  of  his  brothers  and 

*  Beaumarchais  and  His  Times,  3-JO,  as  copied  in  2  Parton's  Franklin,  383. 
t  See  index,  titles  Congress,  Franklin,  Arthur  Lee. 

530 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  [§  146. 

of  himself.  Jefferson  struck  at  this  when  lie  si)oke,  many  years  after- 
wards, in  a  letter  already  quoted,  of  the  "malignity"  of  Arthur  Lee 
operating  not  merely  on  his  lamily  but  on  his  Massachusetts  connec- 
tions, and,  through  his  close  alliance  witli  Izard,  on  the  South  Carolina 
delegation.  This  bitterness  reached  all  by  whom  he  considered  him- 
self crossed,  and  it  eminently  fell  on  those  who  took  ground  in  favor  of 
distinct  executive  departments.  Of  this  we  have  an  illustration  in  his 
denunciations  of  Jay  and  Morris  and  his  insinuations  of  their  corruption, 
given  in  the  next  section.     Nor  was  this  bitterness  confined  to  himself. 

It  will  be  presently  seen  *  how  powerful  at  the  time  was  his  family 
influence  in  Congress.  His  brother,  Eichard  H.  Lee,  whose  eloquence 
as  a  popular  orator  was  considerable  and  whose  character  for  integrity 
was  above  suspicion,  shared  Arthur's  jealous  dislike  both  of  Washington 
and  Franklin.  The  ''  Colden  "  letters,  whose  covert  object  was  the  with- 
drawal of  supreme  command  from  Washington,  were  to  be  shown  by  Ar- 
thur Lee's  direction  to  "E.  H.  L.,"  who  would  know  from  whence  they 
would  come.  As  to  Washington,  it  is  true  the  hostility  of  the  brothers 
was  somewhat  masked. f    But  it  certainly  was  not  masked  as  to  Franklin. 

Thus  we  have  the  following  in  a  letter  of  August  21,  1780,  from 
Eichard  H.  Lee  to  Arthur  Lee : 

*'I  must  confess  that  I  was  surprised  you  had  so  far  i^ut  your  return  to 
America  in  the  power  of  Dr.  Franklin  as  to  commit  yourself  to  the 
alliance.  The  conscious  guilt  of  that  old  man,  and  the  wicked  enmity 
he  has  practiced  and  encouraged  against  you,  must  conspire  to  make 
him  fear  your  arrival  here,  and  instigate  the  fullest  exertion  of  his  art 
and  malicious  cunning,  supported  by  his  present  power,  to  procure  your 
detention  in  Europe.  A  thousand  plausible  pretexts  would  not  be 
wanting  to  effect  that  purpose.  It  will  give  me  infinite  pleasure  to 
learn  that  you  are  removed  from  the  sphere  of  that  wicked  old  man's 
l)ower  and  influence."! 

And  yet  down  to  this  very  time  Franklin  had  not  lifted  a  finger  to 
repel  the  attacks  which  Arthur  Lee  had  been  making  on  him  in  public 
as  well  as  in  private  with  the  ferocity  and  recklessness  wdiich  are 
exhibited  in  the  text. 

Arthur  Lee's  detailed  charges  against  Franklin  are  given  in  full  in  his  memorial 
to  Congress  of  May  1,  1779,  and  appears  in  6  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  ed.,  368. 

In  the  Lee  collection  in  the  Harvard  Library  is  a  letter  from  Richard  H.  Lee  to  F. 
L.  Lee,  dated  Philadelphia,  April  26,  1779,  on  the  same  topic  and  in  the  same  line. 

Richard  H.  Lee's  estimate  of  Franklin  may  be  compared  with  that  of  Washington.  ^ 

*  Infra,  ^  153. 

t  See,  however,  siqn-a,  ^11.  See  in  the  same  section  a  passage  in  which  Washington 
speaks  with  a  severity  very  niiusual  with  him  of  Richard  H.  Lee's  political  course. 
As  to  the  monomania  by  which  the  Lees  and  Adamses  were  possessed  as  to  executive 
power,  see  wfra,  §  209. 

t29  South.  Lit.  Mess.,  435.  The  manuscript  of  this  letter  is  in  the  collection  in 
the  University  of  Virginia. 

^  Supra,  ^  113. 

531 


§  146.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

Samuel  Adams  was  as  upright  as  he  was  able,  but  the  maxim  that 
liberty  could  only  be  maiutaiued  by  sleepless  jealousy  of  authority  was 
ingrained  in  his  nature  not  merely  by  his  long  opposition  career  in 
Massachusetts,  but  by  his  puritanic  traditions.* 

Under  the  best  of  circumstances  Franklin  would  probably  have  ap- 
I)eared  to  Samuel  Adams  as  a  Gallio ;  nor  does  it  seem  that  between 
them  there  was  ever  any  correspondence.  But  the  correspondence 
between  Samuel  Adams  and  Lovell,  also  a  leading  Massachusetts  dele- 
gate, on  the  one  side,  and  Arthur  Lee  on  the  other,  was  intimate  and 
constant.  It  began  with  Arthur  Lee's  election  as  agent  for  Massachu- 
setts at  London,  and  it  was  kept  up  not  only,  as  Jefferson  says,  by 
this  circumstance,  but  by  the  attachment  felt  by  Samuel  Adams  and 
his  associates  to  Richard  H.  Lee,  who  shared  the  instinctive  distrust 
felt  by  the  great  Massachusetts  leader  of  executive  authority  in  any 
shape.  In  the  Samuel  Adams  manuscripts,  already  referred  to  as 
among  the  papers  in  Mr.  Bancroft's  collection,  there  are  numerous  let- 
ters showing  how  fully  Arthur  Lee's  jealousies  were  injected  into  both 
Samuel  Adams  and  Lovell.  How  Arthur  Lee  wrote  to  Samuel  Adams, 
without  any  dissent  in  reply,  may  be  judged  from  tiie  following  : 

'*  I  luive  looked  ucar,  long,  and  narrowly  at  a  person  who  has  been  and  is  the  father 
of  all  this  shameful  business.  Neither  my  reading,  experience,  nor  imagination  can 
furnish  me  w^ith  the  idea  of  a  mind  more  corrupt,  nor  that  labors  with  more  cunning 
and  systematic  constancy  to  carry  that  depravity  into  execution.  The  ministers 
have  wisely  withdrawn  one  instrument  of  this  corruption,  before  he  has  made  a  fatal 
stroke.  I  will  not  answer  for  the  consequences  if  you  do  not  follow  their  example. 
Surely  a  man  of  sense,  of  honor,  integrity,  and  education  may  be  found  to  represent 
you  with  dignity,  and  put  an  end  to  all  this  baseness  and  pilfering,  I  am  sick  and 
ashamed  of  it.  Wo  shall  fall  into  such  vilenesa  soon  that  nothing  Avill  retrieve  our 
character.  The  meanest  of  all  mean  men,  the  most  corrupt  of  all  corrupt  men,  is  assim- 
ilating everything  to  his  own  nature."  (Arthur  Lee  to  Samuel  Adams,  May  22, 1779, 
Bancroft  MSS.) 

In  a  succeeding  paragraph  of  this  same  letter  we  have  the  following: 

''I  can  with  much  confidence  assure  you  that  the  conduct  of  M.  G.  (Gerard)  is 
very  much  disapproved  by  the  minister,  and  that  any  compliments  to  him  upon 
Lis  taking  leave  will  be  unpleasing  here.  As  far  as  I  can  judge,  his  successor  is  of  a 
very  opposite  character,  and  will  pursue  a  very  ditferent  line." 

This  was  wholly  without  authorit3\  Gerard,  in  sustaining  Franklin, 
acted  under  Yergennes'  express  instructions;  and  these  instructions 
were  carried  out  by  Luzerne  even  more  effectively  than  they  had  been 
b3"  Gerard. 

It  is  impossible  to  explain  these  passages,  except  on  the  ground  of 
monomania.  The  baselessness  of  the  charge  against  Williams,  who  is 
referred  to  in  the  second  sentence,  is  hereafter  noticed  -,  *  and  the  charges 
made  in  the  next  sentence  against  Franklin  bear  want  of  reason  on  their 
face.  But  even  more  significantly  is  this  monomania  exhibited  in  the  sec- 
ond extract.  Gerard's  conduct  in  protesting  against  Arthur  Lee's  course 


■  Supra,  $  8.  t  Wra,  ^  18G#. 

532 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE,  [§  146. 

was  not  disapproved  of  by  Vergeiines,  but  was  expressly  directed  by 
bim,  as  tbe  correspondence  elsewbere  given  sbows.  Artbur  Lee,  in 
May,  1779,  bad  no  relations  with  Vergennes,  and  if  be  bad,  be  never 
would  bave  learned  from  Yergennes  that  Vergennos  disapproved  of 
tbe  course  of  Gerard.  Luzerue  did  not  coiue  to  America  to  "  pursue  a 
very  different  liue  from  Gerard,"  but  was  instructed  to  follow  up 
Gerard^s  course  as  to  Franklin  and  Lee,  wbicb  be  did.  The  object  of 
this  letter  was  to  disgrace,  through  Samuel  Adams'  agency,  not  merely 
Franklin,  but  Gerard,  tbe  purpose  being  tbe  transfer  of  Franklin's 
post  to  Artbur  Lee.  This  Artbur  Lee  bad  a  rigbt  to  desire  to  see 
effected;  and  of  his  honesty  in  making  statements  sucb  as  tbose  given 
above  no  doubt  need  be  expressed.  But  in  very  proportion  to  our  belief 
in  tbeir  honesty  must  our  belief  in  bis  monomania  grow  in  strengtb. 

Arthur  Lee,  on  April  17, 1780,  addressed  from  L'Orient  a  note  to  Gerard,  calling  him 
to  account  for  tbe  opinions  he  had  expressed  to  Drayton  and  Paca,  and  saying  that, 
unless  they  are  explained,  "  I  shall  be  induced,  if  not  better  informed,  to  treat  your 
assertions  in  a  manner  that  I  should  be  sorry  for  had  I  reason  to  believe  there  was 
the  least  foundation  for  them."  Gerard,  on  April  28,  1780,  replied:  " The  diiferont 
objects  which  you  mention  being  purely  ministerial,  I  can  not,  nor  is  it  my  duty  to, 
render  account  of  them  to  any  other  persons  than  my  sovereign  and  his  ministers. 
This  is  the  only  answer  which  I  have  to  make  to  your  letter.  You  will  attempt  in 
vain  to  provoke  another  by  any  means  whatever,  and  nothing  will  change  my  sov- 
ereign indifference  to  the  execution  of  your  menaces."  To  this  Arthur  Lee,  on  May 
11, 1730,  answered,  disclaiming  any  menaces,  and  saying  to  "the  sovereign  iuditfer- 
ence  which  you  boast  of  in  regard  to  me,  I  have  only  to  add  an  assurance  of  the  sov- 
ereign contempt  with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be,"  etc. 

As  to  Vergennes'  ''displeasure"  with  Gerard,  Sparks,  in  a  memorandum  in  the 
Harvard  Collection,  volume  32,  thus  writes: 

•'  This  is  all  a  mistake.  I  have  road  the  entire  correspondence  between  the  French 
ministers  and  M.  Gerard  while  he  was  in  Philadelphia,  and  his  conduct  was  approved 
in  the  highest  terms." 

And  Arthur  Leo  himself,  in  a  letter  to  Loudon  Lee  of  May  28,  1779,  in  the  Harvard 
Collection,  volume  32,  writes  that  ho  had  just  had  a  conversation  Avith  Vergennes, 
who  "did  not  express  the  least  disapprobation  of  the  conduct  of  Gerard,  Holker,  and 
Chauraont,  than  which  nothing  could  be  more  base  and  outrageous." 

As  anotber  illustration  of  tbis  mouomanial  jealousy  may  be  given  the 
following : 

"The  wickedness  of  that  old  man  (Franklin)  is  beyond  example,  and  his  good 
fortune  in  escaping  the  punishment  due  his  crimes  is  as  extraordinary.  It  may  be 
proper  to  inform  you  that  the  present  secretary  for  foreign  affairs  (R.  R.  Livingston) 
is  a  decided  partisan  of  Franklin  and  an  enemy  to  Mr.  Adams.  Like  a  number  of 
other  patriots  here,  he  praises  the  former  by  rote  and  undertakes  to  tutor  the  other. 
Whatever  you  see  or  receive  from  him  you  may  consider  as  dictated  by  the  French 
minister."  * 

Of  Livingston  we  shall  bave  occasion  to  speak  more  fully  bereafter.f 
In  speaking  of  him,  when  writing*  to  Dana,  as  an  enemy  of  Adams,  Ar- 
thur Lee  took  tbe  very  course  most  likely  to  arouse  Dana's  sympathy, 

*  A.  Lee  to  Dana,  July  (5,  1782;  Sparks,  MSS.,  Harvard  Library,  vol.  32. 
\  Infra,  ^  180-181. 

533 


§  147.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

as  Dana  owed  bis  proiiiotioii  to  Adams,  to  wlioiii  he  was  much  attached. 
But  it  was  not  true  that  Liviagston  was  a  tool  of  France,  tbough  Arthur 
Lee  no  doubt  thought  be  was.  To  the  entire  fairness  and  independence 
of  Livingston's  diplomatic  i>apers  in  all  matters  in  which  France  was 
concerned  there  are  no  critics  now  who  do  not  bear  testimony. 

Of  Arthur  Lee's  course  in  reference  to  Paul  Jones  and  to  Landais  notice  is  elsewhere 
taken.  (See  index,  Jones,  Landais.)  Paul  Jones'  view  of  Lee's  course  is  shown  in  a 
letter  to  Morris,  June27, 1780,  (Cong.  Library  MSS.,  volunie9),  m  which  he  complains 
of  "Mr.  Lee's  late  conduct  and  duplicity  in  stirring  up  a  mutiny"  on  the  Alliance. 

Effect  of  JuDiau  tiaiuing  on        ^  147^  Yct,  asidc  froHi  tbis   mouomanial   ieal- 

Ills  style.  ■^  '  "J 

ousy,  we  may  find  an  explanation  both  of  the 
intensity  and  of  the  inapi)iicability  of  Arthur  Lee's  invectives  in  the 
style  of  literature  adopted  by  the  "  Junian"  school,  of  which  as  "Junius 
Americanus,"  which  is  the  title  be  for  a  time  selected  for  himself,  he  was 
a  conspicuous  disciple.  The  writings  of  Junius,  according  to  Leckj-, 
'^  became  for  some  time  the  favorite  model  of  political  writers,  who, 
though  they  could  not  rival  him  in  ability,  often  equaled  and  sometimes 
even  exceeded  him  in  scurrility  and  falsehood.'^*  He  ''never  drew  a 
portrait,'^  says  the  same  able  critic,  "  wbich  even  approximated  to  truth. 
His  enemies  are  all  villains  of  the  deepest  dye,  and  his  chief  task  is  to 
diversify  and  intensify  the  epithets  of  hatred."  f  It  may  perhaps  be  said 
of  Arthur  Lee  that,  as  a  follower  of  Wilkes  and  an  admirer  and  imitator 
of  Junius,  he  apjilied  to  those  whom  he  denounced,  without  being  fully 
couscious  of  their  violence,  the  terms  of  denunciation  which  had  made 
Junius  so  famous.  That  this  was  done  without  regard  to  their  appropri- 
ateness is  illustrated  by  the  waj^,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  next  section,  in 
which  he  transferred  to  the  Scotch  in  America  the  obloquy  Junius  i^oured 
on  the  Scotch  in  Europe.  In  the  denunciations  poured  on  Franklin  by 
himself  and  Izard  (and  they  show  a  common  origin)  we  find  similar  in- 
appropriate transfers  of  Junius'  invectives.  It  is  true  that  this  was 
done  once  or  twice  with  some  little  effect.  There  was  no  monstrous  vio- 
lation of  probability  when  to  Franklin  were  applied  the  terms  descriptive 
of  sedate  cunning  which  Junius  gave  of  Mansfield.  But  a  sense  of  entire 
unreality  comes  over  us  when  in  another  paragraph  we  find  Franklin 
flaunting  the  robes  of  audacious  youthful  libertinism  in  which  Junius 
delighted  to  paint  the  Duke  of  Grafton.  And  this  sense  of  unreality 
increases  when  we  find  that  to  other  objects  of  Arthur  Lee's  dislike 
equally  inappropriate  vituperations  were  applied. 

He  criminated  others  as  well  as  Dr.  Franklin.  Relative  to  the  transactions  of 
Congress  in  the  affair  of  Mr.  Deane,  after  that  commissioner  returned  from  France, 
he  wrote  : 

"Paris,  Maij  28,  1779. 

"There  is,  you  may  depend  upon  it,  some  deep  design  against  our  independence  at 
the  bottom.  Many  of  the  taction  are,  I  know,  actuated  by  the  desire  of  geiiiucj  or 
retaining  the  jJublic  plunder ;  but,  besides  this,  Duaue,  Jay,  Morris,  and  others,  who 


3  Lccky 's  History  of  England,  246.  t  Id.,  p.  239. 

534 


CHAP  xil]  lee.  [§  148. 

were  orif/iually  against  our  independence,  have  it  certainly  in  view  to  bring  m  hacJc  to  our 
former  denomination.  Besides  the  invincible  desire  such  men  Lave  of  seeing  their 
system  triumphant,  you  kuovv  what  offers  of  emoluments  and  honors  have  been 
thrown  out  as  a  reward  for  those  who  will  effect  this  so  much  desired  end  for  the 
king  and  his  ministers.  The  same  men  who  have  been  tempted  by  avarice  to  plunder 
the  public,  have  avarice,  vanity,  and  ambition  to  tempt  them  to  sell  the  public."  * 

Again  he  wrote  to  J.  J.  Pringle: 

** Paris,  August  3,  1779. 

'' So  eflPectually  have  the  seeds  sown  by  the  father  of  corruption  here  prospered 
both  in  Europe  and  America,  that  everything  yields  to  it.  Dumas  has  been  at  Passy 
some  weeks,  but  is  not  permitted  to  come  near  mo.  Sayre  tells  me  his  object  is  to  get 
the  agency  for  a  loan  into  the  hands  of  a  French  house.  If  he  offers  good  private  rea- 
sons it  will  embarrass  the  good  doctor  exceedingly,  because  the  house  of  Grand,  in 
whose  hands  it  is  at  present,  is  in  partnership  with  Beane  (in  which  ^jrobablj^  the 
doctor  may  share),  and  therefore  it  will  wound  those  honorable  and  friendly  feelings 
which  bind  them  together.  As  to  the  public,  that  is  out  of  the  question."  (7  Frank- 
lin's Works,  Bigelow's  eel.,  45,  n.) 

'•'Mr.  Arthur  Lee  in  Loudon  had  heard  some  insinuations  against  Mr.  Jay  as  a  sus. 
picious  character,  and  had  written  to  his  brother,  Richard  Henry  Lee,  or  to  Mr.  Sam- 
uel Adams,  or  both,  and  although  they  were  groundless  and  injurious,  as  I  have  no 
doubt,  my  friends  had  communicated  them  too  indiscreetly,  and  had  spoken  cf  Mr. 
Jay  too  lightly."     (Adams'  Autobiography ;  3  John  Adams'  Works,  5. 

So  on  Ms  treatment  of  the  ^  ]48,  \^7g  ij^ve  already  incidentally  noticed  Ar- 
thur Lee's  transfer  to  the  Scotch  in  America  of 
Junius'  attacks  on  the  Scotch  in  England.  Junius,  prompted  by  his 
hatred  of  Mansfield  and  Bute,  and  by  the  political  motives  he  had  to 
elfect  their  humiliation,  expatiated  at  length  on  the  baseness,  the  mean- 
ness, the  cowardice  of  the  Scotch.  So  did  Arthur  Lee,  though  to 
avenge  what  political  wrongs  or  to  effect  what  political  purpose  it 
would  be  imi^ossible,  so  far  as  concerns  the  American  Revolution,  to 
say.  The  Scotch  had  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  oppressiv^e  action 
towards  America,  which  was  due  to  typical  Englishmen,  such  as  George 
Grenville,  Charles  Townshend,  and  Sandwich.  The  vituperations  by 
Junius  of  Scotland,  together  with  his  other  vituperations,  had  been 
silenced  it  was  supposed  by  bribes.  Yet  by  Arthur  Lee  those  cries  of 
*' Beware  of  the  Scotch"  had  been  caught  up  long  after  Junius  had 
ceased  to  utter  them,  and  were  -hurled  at  Congress  with  a  constant 
vehemence  which  shows  how  unaware  he  was  of  their  utter  want  of  ai> 
propriateness  and  of  propriety.  Thus  he  tells  Congress  in  his  dispatch 
of  June  3,  1776,  to  beware  of  ''the  Scots,  whose  perfidy  you  know  can 
never  be  trusted,"  Scots  being  ''  to  a  man  treacherous  and  hostile;  "  and 
on  September  23, 1770,  that  the  ''  principles  of  a  Scotchman"  make  him 
'•subtle,  proud,  tyrannical,  and  false."  Yet  on  the  very  committees 
whom  Arthur  Lee  addressed  were  Scotchmen,  or  men  of  Scotch  descent. 
There  was  Witherspoon,  born  in  Scotland,  educated  at  Edinburgh,  a 
lineal  descendant  of  John  Knox,  president  of  Princeton  College,  a 
signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  a  member  of  the  secret  com- 

*  Letter  to  Loudon  Lee,  now  in  the  Sparks  Collection  at  Harvard  College,  vol.  32. 

535 


§  149.]  DIPLOMATIC    COKRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

uiittee,  and  not  only  a  devoted  revolutionist  himself,  but  the  teacher 
from  whom  many  eminent  patriots  drew  their  revolutionary  principles. 
There  was  McKean,  of  Scotch  descent  and  strong  Scotch-Irish  charac- 
teristics, a  member  of  Congress  during  the  whole  war,  a  signer  of  the 
Declaration,  '^  hunted  like  a  fox  "  by  the  British  during  their  occupancy 
of  Pennsylvania,  moving  his  family  five  times  in  the  course  of  five 
months,  who  was  also  a  member  of  the  same  committee. 

Among  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  also,  and  having  seats  in  sub- 
sequent Congresses,  were  Abraham  Clark  and  James  Wilson,  both  born 
and  educated  in  Scotland,  the  latter  an  eminent  jurist  and  judge  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States;  while  Philip  Livingston, 
and  his  illustrious  nephews,  Eobert  R.  Livingston  and  Brockholst 
Livingston,  then  in  public  life,  were  Scotch  in  immediate  descent. 
Splendidly  conspicuous  in  the  naval  service,  dazzling  by  the  unparal- 
leled brilliancy  of  his  achievements  the  eyes  of  Europe  as  well  as  of 
America,  was  John  Paul  Jones,  a  Scotchman  by  birth,  who,  when  Ar- 
thur Lee  wrote,  on  September  23,  1776,  had  been  cruising  for  nearly  a 
year  with  marvelous  success  on  the  Atlantic,  and  who  afterwards  be- 
came the  object  of  Arthur  Lee^s  pertinacious  dislike.  And  among  the 
Scotch  then  in  the  armies  of  the  United  States,  so  marked  for  their  gal- 
lantry that  the  most  careless  observer  must  have  noticed  thena,  were 
General  Mcintosh,  General  McDougall,  and  General  St.  Clair;  while 
William  Alexander,  claiming  the  Scotch  earldom  of  Stirling,  was  then 
major-general;  and,  thereafter  to  become  more  illustrious  than  them  all 
though  then  comparatively  unnoticed,  was  Alexander  Hamilton,  of 
West  Indian  birth  and  Scotch  parentage.  It  is  only  on  the  ground  of 
a  monomania  which  blinded  him  both  to  fact  and  propriety  that  we  can 
understand  the  uttering  and  re-uttering  in  x^ublic  papers,  with  such 
an  array  of  Scotchmen  before  him,  of  the  cry  "Beware  of  the  Scotch." 

Franklin's  case  apainst  Ar-        §  149,  Could  Fraukliu  have  avoidcd  the  col- 

tnur  Lee  and  Izard.  •' 

lisions  with  Arthur  Lee  and  Izard  which  came 
near  wrecking  the  French-American  alliance?  That  he  should  have 
wantonly  quarreled  with  them  is  inconsistent  with  his  personal  and 
political  characteristics.  The  maxim  often  quoted  by  him,  and  uni- 
formly acted  on  by  him,  is  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  little  enemy. 
Now  here  were  big  enemies,  whose  enmity  was  calculated  not  only  to 
have  embittered  his  life,  so  far  as  it  was  susceptible  of  being  in  this  way 
embittered,  but  of  disgracing  if  not  of  ruining  the  cause  of  his  country. 
Yet  there  is  no  doubt  that,  by  his  refusal  to  inform  Arthur  Lee,  when 
his  colleague  in  Paris,  of  the  maritime  expedition  intended  by  France, 
as  well  as  some  of  his  most  confidential  and  important  conferences  with 
Vergennes,  Arthur  Lee's  enmity,  already  stimulated  by  a  desire  to  get 
Franklin  out  of  his  way  so  that  he  could  be  sole  negotiator  at  Paris, 
was  aroused  to  frenzy,  while  the  refusal  to  confer  with  Izard  at  all 
on  matters  relative  to  the  French  negotiations  led  to  exhibitions  of  rage 
536 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  [§  149. 

Oil  Izard's  [)art  which  put  in  writing,  shown  about  in  Paris,  and  sent  to 
Congress,  increased  to  a  perilous  extent  the  dangers  to  which  the  lega- 
tion was  already  exposed.* 

Was  it  in  the  power  of  Fraiddin  to  quiet  these  animosities  by  taking 
Izard  and  Arthur  Lee  into  his  full  coniidence?  Whether,  it  he  did, 
tliey  would  have  proved  useful  colleagues  is  a  question  that  may  be 
be  reserved.  We  have  tirst  to  ask,  ought  he  to  have  told  thain  all  he 
knew  about  the  niisNion?  As  to  Izard,  it  is  plain  that  not  only  was 
Franklin  not  bound  to  communicate  to  liim  secret  political  information 
derived  from  the  French  ministers,  but  that  it  wouhl  have  l)een  a  breach 
of  duty  to  France  to  make  such  communications.  Izard  was  not  com- 
missioned to  the  French  court,  and  though  an  envoy  in  partibiis,  never 
visiting  the  seat  of  his  legation  or  even  leaving  Paris,  it  was  no  more 
proper  for  him  to  be  informed  of  the  progress  of  negotiations  witli 
France  than  it  was  for  any  other  x)er«on  in  Paris  to  be  so  informed. 
Then,  aside  from  ordinary  diplomatic  usage,  was  Vergennes'  positive 
injunction  that,  in  view  of  the  danger  to  the  allies  of  a  disclosure  of 
their  plans,  those  plans  should  not  be  disclosed  to  Izard,  and  then  also 
the  fact  that  whatever  Izard  was  told  Arthur  Lee  would  at  once  know.t 

Arthur  Lee's  position  was  in  an  important  respect  different  from 
that  of  Izard.  When  Lee  was  a  member  of  the  commission  to  treat 
with  France,  it  was  impossible  for  Franklin  to  exclude  him  from 
knowledge  of  any  diplomatic  conferences  with  Yergennes  w^hich  took 
the  shape  of  action  by  the  United  States.  But  it  was  necessary, 
for  reasons  to  be  presently  given,  that  all  communications  to  Arthur 
Lee  as  to  public  affairs  should  be  made  with  the  greatest  reserve. 

That  Franklin  gave  Arthur  Lee  or  Izard  just  grounds  to  complain  of 
"  haughtiness"  there  is  little  reason  to  believe.  Franklin's  temper  was 
naturally  urbane  and  patient.  Of  course,  when  pressed  by  them  for 
information  which  he  could  not  properly  give,  his  manner,  when  he  did 
not,  as  he  sometimes  did,  resort  to  some  playful  evasions  to  change  the 
subject,  may  have  naturally,  to  eyes  so  suspicious,  appeared  "  haughty." 
But  in  their  voluminous  criticisms  of  his  course  there  is  not  an  instance 
given  of  an  impatient  or  overbearing  expression  used  by  him.  On  the 
contrar3^,  when  he  saw  he  w'as  to  be  overruled  by  his  colleagues,  as 
was  done  in  the  disastrous  removal  of  Williams  as  naval  agent,  and  in 
the  withholding  from  France  information  as  to  the  progress  of  the 
treaty  of  peace,  he  not  only  submitted  without  altercation  or  reproach, 
but  in  view  of  the  mischief  of  disclosing  dissensions  of  this  kind  to  the 
public  eye,  joined  in  the  common  signature.  Nor  di<l  he,  as  he  well  could 
have  done,  utter  one  word  of  retaliation  or  resentment  when  letters  such 
as  that  of  Izard  above  given,  letters  unparalleled  in  history  for  their 
virulent  personality,  were  placed  in  his  hands.  Nor  did  he  relax, 
even  under  these  extraordinary  provocations,  his  hospitalities  to  his 

*  See  as  to  correspoudeDce,  index,  title  Disseusions,  Franklin,  Arthur  Lee. 

t  As  to  Izar<l,  see  infra,  ^S  177. 

537 


§  149.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

refractory  associates,  nor  did  they,  strange  to  say,  shrink  from  accept- 
ing these  hospitalities  at  the  very  time  they  were  pouring  into  the 
ear  of  Congress  invectives  against  him,  charging  him  with  indolence, 
immorality,  subservience  to  France,  as  well  as  insolence  to  themselves. 
Madison,  in  a  letter  to  Jefferson  of  February  11,  1783  (1  Madison's 
Writings,  63),  says: 

'•'■  Your  favor  of  the  31st  of  January  was  safely  brought  by  Mr.  Thompson.  That 
of  the  7th  instant  came  by  yesterday's  mail.  The  anecdote  related  in  the  iirst  was 
new  to  me,  and  if  there  were  no  other  key,  would  sufficiently  decipher  the  implaca- 
bility of  the  party  triumphed  over." 

In  a  note  it  is  said  that  the  "  anecdote  referred  to  an  occurrence  be- 
tween Dr.  Franklin  and  Arthur  Lee." 

In  Jefferson's  letter  to  Madison  of  January  31,  1783  (to  which  the 
above  is  an  answer),  is  the  following : 

"I  will  give  you  an  anecdote  which  possibly  you  may  not  have  heard,  and  which  is 
related  to  me  by  Major  F.  [Franks  ?],  who  had  it  from  Dr.  Franklin  himself.  *  *  * 
Mr.  Z  ,  while  at  Paris,  had  often  pressed  the  doctor  to  communicate  to  him  his  several 
negotiations  with  the  court  of  France,  which  the  doctor  avoided  as  decently  as  he 
could.  At  length  he  received  from  Mr.  Z.  a  very  intemperate  letter.  He  folded  it  up 
and  put  it  into  a  pigeon-hole.  A  second,  third,  and  so  on  to  a  iifth  or  sixth  he  re- 
ceived and  disposed  of  in  tiie  same  wa3\  Finding  no  answer  could  be  obtained  by 
letter,  Mr.  Z.  paid  him  a  personal  visit,  and  gave  a  loose  to  all  the  warmth  of  which 
he  is  susceptible.  The  doctor  replied  :  '■  I  can  no  more  answer  this  conversation  of 
yours  than  the  several  impatient  letters  you  have  written  me  (taking  them  down 
from  the  pigeon-hole).  Call  on  me  when  you  are  cool  and  good  humored  and  I  will 
justify  myself  to  you.'  They  never  saw  each  other  afterwards."  (Madison  Papers, 
Department  of  State.) 

Arthur  Lee  as  well  as  Izard  kept  up,  when  they  returned  to  America^ 
with  unabated  violence,  their  attacks  on  Franklin.*  Lee  was  sent  to 
Congress  from  Virginia,  thougli  on  his  course  in  Paris  becoming  known 
he  barely  escaped  recall.  Izard  also  was  sent  from  South  Carolina, 
perhaps  on  the  same  principle  of  local  pride  on  which  he  was  sustained 
by  his  colleagues,  though  from  a  paper  elsewhere  given,  by  John  Lau- 
rens, it  will  be  seen  they  far  from  agreed  in  accepting  his  views.  Of  the 
unreservedness  of  his  attacks  on  Franklin  we  have  an  illustration  in  a 
passage  in  Graydon,  who,  speaking  of  Izard's  conversation  at  Carlisle 
in  1783,  said:  '-'-  He  seemed  untinctured  with  asperity  upon  every  sub- 
ject but  one,  but  this  never  failed  to  produce  some  excitement,  and  his 
tone  ever  derived  some  animation  from  the  name  of  Dr.  Franklin. 
When,  therefore,  the  doctor's  daughter  (Mrs.  Bache),  in  speaLdng  of  the 
Carolinians,  said  that  she  hated  them  all  from  B  (Bee)  to  Izard,  the 
saying  I  presume  must  be  taken  inclusively,  since,  though  I  know  noth- 
ing of  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Bee,  I  am  enabled  pronounce  those  of  Mr. 
Izard  to  have  been  anti-Franklinian  in  the  extreme."  t  Mrs.  Bache,  who 
inherited  and  transmitted  much  of  her  father's  wit,  was  not  aware  that 
it  was  from  a  South  Carolinian  (John  Laurens)  that  came  a  parody 

*  See  details  in  2  Parton's  Franklin,  387.        +  Quoted  in  2  Parton's  Fraakliu,  387. 
538 


CHAP.  XII. J  LEE.  [§  150. 

which  Frankliu  himself  coiihl  not  have  excelled  in  the  humorous  irony  in 
which  Izard's  i)assi()nate  blunders  were  ex[)ose(l.* 

Arthur  Leo's  unduo  confi-        ^  [5().  Mcu  wlio  are  unreasouablv   jealous  of 

uouce  in  auu   bctiayal   by  ■^  >j     .> 

favorites.  rivals  arc  often  unreasonably  subject  to  subordi- 

nates, who  win  their  confidence  by  acts  which  iu 
themselves  show  the  un worthiness  of  tliose  by  whom  they  are  used. 
This  was  eminently  the  case  with  Arthur  Lee.  The  verj^  arrogance 
and  suspiciousness  of  temper,  which  made  it  almost  impossible  for  his 
colleagues  to  act  with  him  as  an  associate,  rendered  him  peculiarly 
liable  to  be  imposed  on  by  the  treachery  of  dependents;  and  hence  it 
was  that  through  the  perfidy  of  his  successive  secretaries  the  secrets  of 
his  missions  were  sold  to  Loid  North,  he  himself  made  the  channel  of 
.false  decoy  intelligence  sent  to  America,  and  the  character  of  the  lega- 
tion itself  brought  under  serious  disrepute  iu  the  French  ministry.! 

Arthur  Lee's  secretaries  were  as  follows: 

(1)  Thornton,  a  British  spy,  i^aid  by  Lord  North  to  get  true  news 
from  Lee  iu  exchange  for  false  news  from  London. | 

(2)  Hezeldah  Ford.  Iu  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  January  9,  1779, 
from  Governor  Henry,  of  Virginia,  to  the  delegates  of  that  State,  we 
hav^e  the  following : 

*' '  Within  these  few  days  I  have  received  information  by  a  paper  sent  from  the  Hon. 
Arthnr  Lee,  esq.,  at  Paris,  to  the  Hon.  John  Page,  esq.,  lientenant  governor  of  this 
State,  that  Hezekiah  Ford  is  secretary  to  Mr.  Lee.  Every  member  of  the  privy 
conncil,  as  well  as  myself,  is  exceedingly  alarmed  at  the  circumstance,  having  the 
most  perfect  conviction  that  Mr.  For^l  is  altogether  unfit  to  be  near  the  person  ottlie 
American  commissioners.  Nothing  could  induce  auy  member  of  the  council,  or  me, 
to  touch  upon  a  matter  of  this  delicate  nature,  especially  at  this  time,  when  Mr.  Lee's 
character  is  attacked  in  public,  but  the  persuasion  that  either  Congress  does  not  know 
that  Mr.  Ford  is  employed  in  a  confidential  capacity  by  one  of  their  commissioners,  or 
that  his  true  character  is  unknown  to  them  or  him.  An  assurance  that  the  most 
essential  i:it crests  of  America  will  be  betrayed  by  this  man  if  he  has  the  opportunity 
has  made  it  necessary  to  mention  the  following  particulars : 

''This  Hezekiah  Ford  has  pavssed  for  a  miuister  of  the  Thurch  of  England  and  was 
sometime  chaplain  to  a  Carolina  regiment.  He  was  strongly  suspected  of  writing  a 
seditious  paper  addressed  to  the  people  of  Hanover  county,  exhorting  them  to  resist 
by  force  a  draft  ordered  by  law  from  the  militia  to  fill  the  Virginia  regiments  iu  con- 
tinental service.  Very  shortly  after  this  paper  appeared  and  suspicion  of  his  writing- 
it,  li3  went  at  great  hazard  to  himself  on  board  the  British  ship  of  war  called  the  St. 
Albans,  then  lying  in  Hampton  Roads.  There  he  remained  a  considerable  time,  and 
from  thence  proceeded  to  New  York,  continuing  with  the  enerny  until  he  chose  to 
go  to  England,  from  whence  he  proceeded  after  some  time  to  France,  where  it  seems 
from  the  paper  I  inclose  he  has  found  means  to  obtain  an  appointment  in  which  an 
enemy  to  America  may  perhaps  be  furnished  with  opportunities  to  do  great  mischief. 
I  have  been  told  that  Ford  pretends  that  he  was  taken  by  the  SL  Albans.     But  upon 

*  See  infra,  ^  178,  179. 

+  "  Je  vous  avouerai  que  je  crains  M.  Lee  et  ses  eutours."    Vergennes  to  Gerard, 
October  26,  1778. 
Similar  expressions  of  anxiety  and  doubt  frequently  appear. 
\  Infra,  $  207. 

539 


§150.]  DIPLOMATIC    COKRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

obtaining  the  best  information  to  be  bad  on  the  subject  no  clou-  t  remainsof  bis  going 
to  that  sbip  of  bis  own  free  and  premeditated  choice.  Besides  this,  there  seems  to  be 
good  ground  to  suspect  this  same  Mr.  Ford  of  being  coueerued  in  counterfeiting  our 
paper  money.'" 

Next  came  the  following  action  of  Congress: 

"Tuesday,  January  2G,  1779. 

"The  honorable  M.  Smith  Laid  before  Congress  suudry  papers  which  he  informed 
the  House  contained  matters  of  j)iib!ic  information,  and  which  the  delegates  of  Vir- 
ginia were  instructed  to  lay  before  Congress:  the  papers  being  read,  are 

"(1)  An  account  headed  '  Sums  advanced  for  the  State  of  Virginia  by  the  honorable 
Arthur  Lee,  esq.,  dated  the  3d  of  September,  1778,'  and  undersigned,  'A  trnecopy,  H. 
Ford,  secrefary.'  On  which  is  indorsed  as  follows:  'The  delegates  from  the  State  of 
Virginia  are  instructed  to  lay  tins  paper  before  Congress,  with  a  view  to  inform  them 
that  Hezekiah  Ford,  who  signs  it  as  secretary  to  the  honorable  Arthur  Lee,  hath  been 
and  is  considered  by  the  governor  and  council  of  this  State  as  an  enemy  to  the  Ameri- 
can cause  of  independence,  and  by  no  means  a  fit  person  to  be  near  the  person  of  an 
American  commissioner  in  Europe,  or  intrusted  with  any  of  the  secrets  of  the  United 
States  or  of  tlieir  allies.     January  25,  1779.' 

"  Ordered,  That  the  committee  of  foreign  affairs  coinmuuicate  to  the  honorable  Mr. 
A.  Lee  by  the  first  opportunity  the  purport  of  the  above  indorsement,  that  he  may 
be  made  acquainted  with  the  character  of  Mr.  Ford."     (3  Journals  of  Congress,  191.) 

These  proceedings  were  forwarded  by  Lovell  to  Aitbnr  Lee  on  Jan- 
uary 29,  1779,  in  a  letter  now  in  the  collection  at  the  University  of  Vir- 
ginia. This  letter,  however,  seems  not  to  have  been  received  till  May, 
1779,  and  was  never  answered  so  far  as  the  papers  show. 

On  April  26,  1779,  Lee  writes  to  Congress: 

"This  will  be  delivered  to  you  by  Mr.  Hezekiah  Ford,  who  has  served  me  faithfully 
for  eight  months  as  secretary.  He  will  give  you  the  best  information  in  his  power  of 
the  state  of  affairs  here." 

On  July  7, 1779,  Artliur  Lee  wrote  from  Paris  to  Jefferson  (then  gov- 
ernor of  Virginia),  saying  in  reply  to  an  inquiry,  that  he  had  not  "  the 
smallest  reason  for  suspecting"  Ford,  ''and  that  lord's  conduct  was  ex- 
emplary and  irreproachable  while  he  was  here." 

On  August  23,  1779,  Whipple,  a  Il^ew  Hampshire  member  of  Con- 
gress and  strong  personal  friend  of  Artliur  Lee,  thus  writes  to  Lee 
from  Philadelphia: 

"  What  can  have  become  of  Ford?  It  is  now  ten  days  since  a  fellow  passenger 
of  his  passed  through  this  city  (Philadelphia),  who  informed  me  that  Ford  bad  dis- 
patches for  Congress,  but  nothing  furtlicr  has  been  heard  of  him.  It  is  hinted  by 
some  that  he  will  not  be  permitted  to  pass  this  way,  but  these  are  not  remarkable  for 
their  friendship  for  his  late  employer." 

Ford  probably  made  his  way,  with  whatever  papers  he  possessed,  to 
the  British  authorities  at  New  York,  as  we  have  no  notice  of  his  appear- 
ing within  the  American  lines  to  defend  himself  on  the  charge  of  treason 
made  against  him  as  above.* 

*  In  George  Ill's  correspondence  vrith  North,  a  British  spy  at  Paris,  who  had  special 
access  to  the  Anierican  legation,  is  spoken  of  frequently  under  the  name  of  "  Forth." 

540 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  [§  150. 

Among  the  Lee  i)a])er8  at  Harvard  College  is  preserved  the  tbllowiug, 

which  may  be  taken  in  connection  with  Ford^s  disappearance: 

"  It  is  well  known  this  gentleman's  (Arthur  Leo's)  foiiner  private  secretary  was  of  a 
very  suspicions  cliai-acfcr;  that  after  j;oin<;  over  several  times  privately  back  and 
forth  from  Paris  to  Ijondon  lie  took  up  his  residence  in  London  under  the  protection 
of  the  British  ministry,  and  that  the  man  who  succeeded  him  as  Mr.  Lee's  secretary 
was  one  Ford,  a  most  infamous  tory  and  refugee  parson  fioui  London,  whither  he  had 
lied  irom  Virginia  to  avoid  the  vengeance  of  his  countrymen,  and  where  he  lived  like 
other  refugees  until  he  went  over  to  Paris  and  entered  on  his  secretaryship  under  Mr. 
Lee."    (Virginia  Gazette,  July  17,  1771).) 

(3)  Stephen  Sayre,  whose  extraordinary  adventures  will  be  hereafter 
narrated,  and  who  compromised  the  American  cause,  if  not  by  corrup- 
tion, at  least  by  the  most  absurd  extravagances.* 

With  these  may  be  mentioned  the  following; 

(4)  Thomas  and  George  Dir/ges,  claiming  to  be  Americans  by  birth, 
who  w^ere  in  England  during  the  Revolution,  though  in  1778  George 
visited  the  United  States.  Of  Thomas,  Arthur  Lee,  on  December  8, 
1777,  thus  wrote  to  the  committee  of  foreign  affairs : 

''It  has  also  fallen  very  particularly  within  my  knowledge  that  Mr.  Thomas  Digges, 
of  Maryland,  has  exerted  himself  with  great  assiduity  and  address  in  gaining  intel- 
ligence and  doing  other  services  in  England." 

On  April  IG,  1778,  we  have  Arthur  Lee  giving  to  Samuel  Adams  a 
recommendation  of  George  Digges  '-as  a  very  worthy  person,  and, 
together  with  his  brother,  who  is  yet  in  London,  has  done  services  to 
the  cause." 

The  character  of  Thomas  Digges  will  be  hereafter  considered, t  and 
it  will  be  seen  that  he  grossly  betrayed  American  trusts  which  had 
been  i)laced  in  his  hands. 

(5)  BerkenJiout,  also  in  British  employ,  the  extent  of  whose  intimacy 
with  Arthur  Lee  is  also  hereafter  noticed. | 

The  baleful  influence  of  these  men  on  the  American  cause  can  not  be 
overestimated.  The  information  they  imparted  to  Lee,  false  and 
treacherous  as  it  was,  w^as  productive,  as  will  presently  be  seen,  of 
much  disaster  to  ourselves  and  to  oi|r  allies;  and  the  information  they 
obtained  from  Lee  was  followed  by  British  expeditions  so  adroitly 
aimed  as  to  be  traceable  to  the  advice  so  received. 

Arthur  Lee's  own  loyalty  is  not  disputed. §     The  solution  of  the  dam- 

*  Infra,  H  192  #.  \  Infra,  ^  20G.  t  Infra,  ^V204. 

^Sparks,  in  a  manuscript  note  in  the  Harvard  Collection,  vol.  22,  says: 
"There  was  probably  not  a  truer  patriot  in  America  than  Arthur  Lee,  nor  one  more 
firm  and  decided  in  the  course  he  professed  to  pursue.  There  is  not  a  glimpse  of 
proof  that  he  had  any  bias  or  aftection  or  interest  towards  England  which  could  bo 
considered  as  compromitting  his  attachment  to  his  own  country.  His  faults  of  tem- 
per and  indiscretion  were  innumerable,  and  made  him  a  very  nufit  man  for  the  post 
he  held  abroad,  but  the  reproach  of  leaning  towards  the  enemies  of  his  country,  or 
seeking  personal  ends  of  profit  or  gain,  can  not  be  applied  to  him  without  marked 
injustice."  Sparks  gave  this  testimony  after  a  careful  review  and  refutation  of 
Arthur  Lee's  gross  j)erversions  of  fact  as  to  Vergennes,  Adams,  Jay,  and  Gerard, 
which  misstatements  Sparks  attributed  to  jealousy  amounting  to  insanity. 

541 


§151.]  DlPLOxMATlC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

age  attributable  to  his  connection  with  the  mission  is  to  be  found  in 
part  in  a  jealousy  of  Franklin  approaching  fury,  and  in  a  confidence  in 
liis  secretaries  and  subordinates  approaching  fatuity.  There  have  been 
other  honest  men  with  the  same  traits;  men  above  corruption,  yet 
who  can  see  nothing  but  what  is  untrustworthy  in  supposed  rivals,  and 
nothing  but  what  Is  trustworthy  in  obsequious  dependents. 

Carmichael's  letter  to  Congress  of  August  6,  1778,  in  answer  to  Ar- 
thur Lee's  charges,  will  be  found  in  a  curious  volume  entitled  ''  Papers 
iu  relation  to  the  case  of  Silas  Deane,  Philadelphia;  printed  for  the 
Seventy-Six  Society.    Philadelphia,  1855." 

Unfortunately  this  letter  is  given  without  the  exhibits,  consisting  of 
letters  bearing  on  Arthur  Lee's  English  correspondents. 

The  following  statement  by  Oarmichael  is  worthy  of  notice : 

"The  suspicious  entertaiued  by  the  French  miuistry  that  tlie  secrets  respecting 
onr  affairs  were  betrayed  is  by  no  means  to  be  wondered  at ;  for  the  loss  of  Mr.  Lee's 
impers  at  Berlin  gave  such  a  clue  to  the  English  court,  that  the  commissioners  could  not  have 
concealed  the  operations  at  that  time  commenced,  unless,  in  the  midst  of  them,  then  ^'«f^ 
changed  their  whole  arrangement,  which  was  impossible.  From  this  uufortunate  circum- 
stance arose  the  necessity  of  selling  our  frigate  in  Holland  and  many  other  obstacles 
to  the  trausportation  of  our  clothing  from  Europe."* 

Comments  on  the  damage  done  by  the  loss  of  these  letters  will  be 
found  in  a  note  to  Arthur  Lee's  letter  to  commissioners  of  June  28, 
1777,  where  Carlisle  is  quoted  to  the  effect  that  through  them  the  British 
Government  gained  important  information. 

"A  secret  memoir,"  by  Beauraarchais,  giving  his  views  as  to  Deane  and  Franklin,  is 
published  in  3  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  631.  In  this  paper  Lee's  ''libertine  suppers" 
are  referred  to  as  the  occasions  of  his  disclosures  to  Beaumarchais  of  his  political 
preferences.  He  refers  to  Arthur  Lee  having  sent  his  "  valet  de  chambre  very  secretly 
to  London"  on  the  receipt  of  the  letters  recalling  Deane,  and  asks:  "What  is  the 
object  of  this  mysterious  message  ?  Why  do  they  always  know  in  London  so  exactly 
what  is  passing  iu  Versailles  ?  "  The  letter  goes  on  to  urge  Vergennes  to  bestow  some 
public  mark  of  royal  consideration  on  Deane. 

This  letter  is  not  dated,  but  is  followed  by  Vergennes'  letter  of  March  26,  1778,  to 
Deane,  accompanying  a  portrait  of  the  king. 

Imposed  upon  by  decoy  fab-        §  151.  That  Arthur  Lce  was  misled  by  false 

information  given  to  him  as  to  British  move- 
ments, and  that  Congress  and  our  military  authorities  were  misled  by 
him,  his  letters  to  Congress  show.  We  may  begin  with  the  letters 
written  by  him  in  the  spring  of  1770.  The  then  real  object  of  British 
attack  were  the  cities  of  New  York  and  Charleston.  For  the  latter 
city  the  fleet  under  Sir  Peter  Parker  and  the  land  forces  commanded 
by  Lord  Cornwallis  and  General  Clinton  were  destined.  Sullivan's 
Island,  which  controlled  the  approach  to  Charleston,  was  defended 
successfully  by  the  Americans,  and  on  June  28,  1776,  the  British  attack 
was  repulsed.  New  York  fared  much  worse.  It  was  against  this  city 
that  the  main  body  of  the  British  forces  were  hurled.    Early  in  June 


*  See  supra,  $  90. 
542 


CHAP   XII. ]  LEE.  [§  151. 

General  Howe,  ^'in  prosecution  of  liis  plan,  refreshed  liis  troops  at 
Halifax  and  proceeded  to  Sandy  Hook;  but  beiu^^  infornied  that  the 
enemy  were  endeavoring,  by  strong  intrenchments  at  New  York  and 
Long  Island,  and  by  chains  of  sunk  vessels  in  different  parts  of  the 
channel  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  the  fleet  up  the  Nortli  and  East 
rivers,  he  repaired  to  Staten  Island,  opposite  Long  Island^  where  he 
landed  his  men  without  opposition.  Lord  Howe,  the. joint  commissioner 
for  treating  on  peace,  who  had  been  long  expected,  arrived  in  the  in- 
terval at  Sandy  Hook,  and,  i^roceediug  immediately  to  Staten  Island, 
landed  his  troops  (July  3)  from  England,  which  augmented  the  British 
force  to  nearly  thirty  thousand  men,  supported  by  a  numerous  and 
poweiful  fleet."* 

Before  this  overwhelming  force  Washington,  whose  army  was  weak- 
ened by  large  detachments  to  the  north,  was  compelled  to  retreat,  and 
New  York  was  lost.  How  far  the  defective  disposition  of  the  Ameri- 
can forces  was  induced  by  Arthur  Lee's  erroneous  "  confidentially 
obtained"  advices  can  not  now  be  discovered.  It  is  enough  to  say  that 
Arthur  Lee's  statement  that  the  British  northern  attack  was  to  be 
through  Quebec  and  Albany  and  that  the  southern  attack  was  to  be 
aimed  at  Virginia  not  only  was  untrue,  but  was  calculated  greatly  to 
mislead  those  directing  the  American  campaign. 

The  plan  which  Arthur  Lee  announced  for  the  British  campaign  of 
1776  was  substantially  that  adopted  by  Great  Britain  for  the  campaign 
of  1777.  When,  however,  Arthur  Lee  nndertook,  on  February  11, 
1777,  to  announce  the  latter  campaign,  it  was  in  terms  as  incorrect 
and  misleading  as  those  in  which  he  foretold  the  campaign  of  1776. 
Howe  was  "to  act  against  New  England;"  Carleton  was  to  make  his 
way  over  the  lakes  to  keep  the  middle  colonies  in  awe,  while  "  Burgoy  ne, 
with  an  armament  from  England  of  ten  thousand,  if  it  can  be  procured, 
invades  the  South — probably  Virginia  and  Maryland."! 

As  Sparks  well  remarks:  "This  intelligence,  which  was  entirely 
erroneous,  was  probably  sent  into  France  with  a  view  of  creating  there 
a  false  impression  as  to  the  plans  of  the  British  Government."  That 
the  intelligence  came  through  Thornton,  and  that  Thornton  was  em- 
ployed at  the  time  as  a  British  spy,  we  now  know,  but  it  was  not  known 
by  Sparks.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  the  British  campaign  was  for  Howe 
to  invade  not  New  England  but  Philadelphia;  for  Burgoyue  to  attack 
not  Virginia  but  New  York,  by  way  of  Canada,  to  be  met  on  the  Hud- 
son liiver  by  Clinton,  and  in  this  way  to  *•' encircle  New  England;" 
while  for  Carleton  "to  make  his  way  over  the  lakes  to  keep  the  middle 
colonies  in  awe,"  as  a  feint,  was  not  within  the  British  plan  at  all.    The 

*2  Adolphus'  History  of  England,  S.VJ.  I  quote  from  this  author  as  the  English 
historian  who,  of  all  others,  is  least  likely  to  fail  iu  details  of  the  British  campaign 
during  the  revolutionary  war.  To  the  same  general  effect  is  6  Mahon's  History  of 
England,  164/. 

tSee  letter  of  commissioners  to  Vergeunes,  Feh.  1,  1777. 

543 


§  151.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

same  may  be  said  of  Lee's  statement  of  Februar}'  18,  1777,  as  derived 
from  a  "  confidential  correspondent,"  that  "  Boston  is  certainly  to  be 
attacked  in  the  spring.    Burgoyne  will  command." 

The  British  campaign  of  the  summer  of  1778  is  thus  announced  by 
Arthur  Lee  in  a  letter  to  the  committee  of  foreign  affairs  dated  June 
1,  1778: 

^'  I  have  exceeding  good  information  that  their  pi au  of  operations  for  America  is  as 
follows:  General  Howe  is  to  evacuate  Philadelphia,  sending  five  thousand  of  his  troops 
and  ten  ships  of  war  to  Quebec;  the  rest  of  the  troops,  with  the  fleet,  are  to  returu  to 
Halifax,  where  the  latter,  heiug  joined  by  Admiral  Byron,  will,  it  is  presumed,  main- 
tain a  superiority  in  those  seas  over  the  allied  fleet." 

That  Philadelphia  was  to  be  evacuated  before  the  summer  campaign 
of  1778  began  was  a  matter  of  necessity,  as  the  British  army  was  melt- 
ing away  by  desertion  in  that  city,  and  the  river  was  liable  any  moment 
to  be  blockaded  by  the  French.  What  the  ministry  wanted  was  to 
enable  Howe's  army  to  retreat  ?afely  to  New  York  without  danger, 
and  to  draw  Washington  off  from  impeding  this  retreat  nothing  could 
have  been  more  effective  than  to  impress  him  with  the  belief  that 
Howe,  instead  of  marching  across  New  Jersey,  would  go  by  sea  to 
Halifax.  Fortunately  Arthur  Lee's  letter,  by  which  this  strategem  was 
to  work,  did  not  reach  America  in  time  to  take  effect.  That  Howe 
should  have  taken  his  army  to  Quebec  and  Halifax  was  in  fact  a  sug- 
gestion which  on  its  face  could  onl^^  have  been  regarded  as  a  clumsy 
decoy.  Washington,  seeing  that  the  only  available  retreat  for  the  Brit- 
ish troops  was  through  New  Jersey,  followed  them  on  that  line,  and 
gave  battle  to  them  at  Monmouth. 

Of  the  British  expedition  to  Georgia  in  1778,  by  which  Savannah 
was  taken  and  great  injury  inflicted  gn  the  American  cause,  we  have 
not  an  intimation,  though,  as  we  are  told  in  G  Mahon's  History  of  Eng- 
land, 383,  Sir  Henry  Clinton's  "  main  purpose  at  this  time  was  to  carry 
the  war  into  the  Southern  States.  *  *  *  With  these  views,  in  which 
the  cabinet  at  home  participated,  Sir  Henry  dispatched  a  body  of  thirty- 
five  hundred  men  by  sea  to  Georgia."  Of  this  "  cabinet "  purpose  how- 
ever Arthur  Lee's  confidential  authority  gives  no  hint.  The  real  points 
of  British  attack  are  concealed,  while  decoy  statements  are  given  of 
plans  which  never  existed,  and  spots  which  it  was  not  intended  to 
attack. 

We  have,  then,  advices  forwarded  to  Congress  by  Arthur  Lee  of  the 
British  plans  for  the  three  successive  campaigns  of  177G,  1777,  and 
1778.  It  is  difficult  to  regard  these  advices,  each  of  them,  if  followed 
out,  calculated  to  bring  great  disaster  on  the  American  cause,  other- 
wise than  as  a  system  of  decoy  imx>osed  by  Lord  North  through  Thorn- 
ton on  Arthur  Lee.  The  patriotism  and  honesty  of  Arthur  Lee  can  not 
be  assailed.  But  he  was  imposed  on  by  obsequious  traitors,  to  whom, 
like  most  men  of  vehement  prejudices  when  approached  by  subservient 
villains,  he  gave  his  confidence  in  the  same  way  that  to  his  rivals  or 
544 


CHAP.  XII.]  lep:.  [§  151. 

superiors  be  gave  his  animosity.  But  it  tells  but  little  for  bis  acuteuess 
of  observatiou  tbat  after  liis  earlier  ])redictious  liad  failed  so  disastrously 
be  sbould  bave  goue  on  di awing  and  communicating  subsequent  an 
nouncements  from  tbe  same  source.  Yet,  even  if  be  bad  been  expressly 
warned  of  tbis  treacbery,  it  is  not  probable  he  would  have  heeded  the 
warning.  For,  like  others  of  his  temper,  tbe  uniform  suspicion  with 
which  be  regarded  equals  led  hiiji  to  look  upon  obsequious  dependents 
as  above  suspicion. 

Thornton's  communications  to  Arthur  Lee  in  respect  to  British  opera- 
tions in  America  were  mostl^^  oral,  and  of  such  as  were  written  only  a 
few  scraps  remain.  We  must  judge  of  them  chiefly  therefore  from  the 
form  they  took  when  transferred  to  Arthur  Lee's  letters  to  America. 
It  is  otherwise  however  with  a  remarkable  group  of  letters  whose  char- 
acter and  effect  may  be  thus  stated  : 

In  May,  1778,  Thornton,  under  Arthur  Lee's  instructiorjs,  undertook 
a  journey  to  Portsmouth  for  tbe  i^urpose  of  obtaining  information  of 
British  naval  operations.  Tbe  period  was  one  of  singular  peril.  Through 
tbe  mismanagement  and  supineness  of  the  administration  England,  on 
tbe  eve  of  a  war  with  France,  was  practically  undefended,  while  France 
was  gathering  at  Brest  and  at  Toulon  two  powerful  fleets.  Tbe  an- 
nouncement however  of  tbe  treaty  of  alliance  between  France  and  the 
United  States  awoke  tbe  ministry  to  their  danger,  and  on  March  22, 
1778,  Keppel,  then  tbe  ablest  and  most  popular  admiral  in  service,  was 
commissioned  as  commander-in-chief  of  tbe  channel  fleet.  On  tbe  24th 
of  March,  as  bis  biograpber  tells  us,  "be  hoisted  bis  flag  on  board  the 
Prince  George.  But  instead  of  the  noble  fleet  be  bad  been  led  to  expect 
there  were  only  six  ships  of  the  line  in  any  degree  fit  for  service,  a  great 
scarcity  of  sailors,  and  an  almost  total  deficiency  of  stores  and  pro- 
visions."* 

This  would  have  been  tbe  time  for  a  French  descent.  But  of  the  de- 
fenseless condition  of  the  English  coast  and  of  the  feebleness  of  the 
channel  fleet  it  was  not  intended  by  the  British  Government  that  the 
French  should  be  informed;  and  Thornton  then,  as  we  shall  see,  in 
constant  correspondence  with  Lord  North,  was  no  doubt  instructed  not 
merely  to  cover  up  this  deficiency,  but  to  give  Arthur  Lee  such  an  ac- 
count of  tbe  channel  fleet  as  would  prevent  a  French  dash  on  England. 
Tbis  he  did  in  a  note  of  April  25,  now  among  tbe  Lee  manuscripts  in 
the  library  of  tbe  University  of  Virginia,  in  which  note  be  declares  that 
there  are  "  at  Spitbead  thirty  ships  of  the  line,  beside  four  frigates  and 
eight  sloops,  beside  ten  sail  of  the  line  getting  ready  with  all  expedi- 
tion." He  states  in  tbe  same  note  that  "  two  men  of  war  of  tbe  line  are 
to  sail  immediately  to  convoy  the  Manchester  regiment  to  Gibraltar." 
Here  was  a  piece  of  information  which,  if  true,  would  have  been  of  great 
value  to  France,  since  it  would  have  enabled  a  small  detachment  of  tbe 


*  2  Life  of  Keppel,  19. 
35  WH  545 


§151.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPOl^DENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

Freiicli  fleet  at  Brest  to  seize  without  difficulty  these  two  ships  wdth  the 
"Manchester  regiment"  in  tow.  But  the  statement  was  a  trap,  since 
Kei)pel's  instruciious  were  to  send  with  these  two  shii)s  as  hirge  a  part 
of  his  fleet  as  would  be  necessary  to  i)rotect  them  from  a  surprise,  and 
not  to  let  the  convoy  sail  till  it  could  be  thus  secured.  Hence,  if  France 
had  acted  on  Thornton's  information,  the  small  squadron  she  would  have 
sent  out  to  capture  the  "two-ship  convoy"  would  have  found  itself  at 
once  enveloped  in  a  vastly  superior  force. 

On  May  16,  when,  under  KeppePs  vigorous  administration,  the  chan- 
nel fleet  had  been  largely  re-enforced  and  was  fully  ready  for  action, 
Thornton,  no  doubt  still  under  instructions  from  the  ministry,  entirely 
changed  his  key.  On  April  25,  when  the  coast  was  com[)aratively  de- 
fenseless, he  falsely  exaggerated  the  strength  of  the  channel  fleet  so  as 
to  prevent  attack.  On  May  10,  when  the  fleet  was  strong,  he  falsely 
understated  its  strength  so  as  to  invite  attack.  It  could  not  be  con- 
cealed from  France  that  Keppel  had  at  that  particular  time  between 
thirty-five  and  forty  ships  under  his  command,  for  these  ships  had  been 
exhibited  at  a  royal  review  a  few  daj^s  before,  and  their  names  and 
armaments  published  to  the  world.  But  Thornton  informs  Arthur  Lee 
that  the  thirty-five  ships  which,  after  certain  detachments,  are  all  that 
remain  to  Keppel,  "are  very  little  more  than  halt  manned,  that  you 
may  rely  on  as  trutli,  I  have  it  from  a  principal  clerk  of  the  admiralty."* 
He  then  goes  on  with  a  dangerously  deceptive  statement:  "The  Bien- 
faisant  and  a  sioo})  are  ordered  to  cruise  oft  Brest,  to  observe  the  mo- 
tion of  the  fleet.  McBride,  who  distinguished  himself  last  war,  commands 
it."  Now,  as  we  learn  from  Keppel's  Life,  the  Bienfaismit,  commanded  by 
Captain  McBride,  was  one  of  Keppel's  fleet,  but  so  far  from  it  being 
intended  that  the  Bienfaimnt  should  cruise,  accompanied  only  by  a 
sloop,  before  Brest,  so  as  to  justify  an  attack  by  a  small  French  detach- 
ment, the  instructions  issued  on  April  25,  1778,  by  the  admiralty  to 
Keppel  were,  "to  cruise  at  such  a  distance,  and  upon  such  a  station, 
olf  the  port  of  Brest,  as  you  shall  judge  most  proper  to  prevent  the 
junction  of  the  French  squadrons  abov^e  mentioned,  and  to  intercept 
any  ships  that  may  attempt  to  sail  from  Brest  to  molest  the  convoy 
going  to  Gibraltar.  *  *  *  In  case  the  Toulon  sq^uadron  shall  have 
joined  the  squadron  at  Brest  before  you  arrive  upon  your  station,  *  *  * 
and  the  two  squadrons,  when  combined,  should  venture  to  come  out, 
or  if  at  the  time  the  Toulon  squadron  may  be  attempting  to  push  into 
the  port  of  Brest,  *  *  *  the  squadron  in  that  port  should  come 
out,  in  order  to  succor  and  effect  a  junction  with  the  other,  you  are,  in 
either  of  the  cases,  if  the  superiority  of  the  French  fleet  is  not  very  ap- 
parent, to  give  them  battle."t  The  instructions  to  Keppel  were  to 
attack  the  Brest  fleet  in  force  whenever  it  should  come  out.     Thornton's 

*Lee  MSS.,  Harvard  Library.     This  is  reiterated  in  a  letter  dated  Portsmouth, 
May  21. 

t  2  Keppel's  Life,  27,  28. 

546 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  [§  151. 

fiilsebood  as  to  tbe  Blenfaisant,  no  doubt  iiiteuded  to  reach  tlie  Freucli 
Government  through  Arthur  Lee,  might,  it*  it  had  been  believed,  have 
led  to  the  capture  of  at  least  that  part  of  the  Brest  fleet  which  had 
been  thus  enticed  out  to  catch  the  Bienfaisant  On  May  30,  as  if  to 
draw  an  additional  veil  over  the  British  plan  of  campaign  and  to  throw 
the  French  still  more  off  their  guard,  Thornton  writes  to  Arthur  Lee 
that  Admiral  Byron  is  ordered  ''not  to  attack  any  French  ships  of 
war  unless  he  finds  they  have  acted  in  a  hostile  manner." 

It  was  not  until  May  30,  just  as  Keppel  was  making  his  preparations 
to  leave  port,  that  Thornton  advised  Arthur  Lee  of  the  movement 
towards  Brest,  instructions  for  which  had  issued  on  April  25.  The 
decoy  of  May  10  had  proved  ineffectual,  and  there  was  no  longer  any 
use  in  attempting  to  conceal  those  movements  of  the  channel  fleet, 
which  the  most  careless  observer  would  detect. 

Cn  June  13  Keppel  got  under  weigh  for  that  cruise  which  had  so  much 
to  do  with  his  own  reputation  and  with  the  future  course  of  the  war. 
He  had  with  him  twenty-two  ships  of  the  line,  three  frigates,  and  two 
armed  cutters.  An  engagement  was  prematurely  precipitated  between 
several  of  his  ships  and  two  French  ships ;  and  from  jjapers  taken  from 
the  latter  ''Keppel  found  to  his  astonishment  that  the  French  had 
thirty-two  sail  of  the  line,  besides  ten  or  twelve  frigates,  in  Brest  roads. 
*  *  *  As  his  secret  instructions  expressly  enjoined  him,  if  he  found 
the  force  at  Brest  superior  to  his  own,  to  return  to  St.  Helen's  for  a  re- 
enforcement,  and  not  to  leave  exposed  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  the 
protection  of  which  was  to  be  the  principal  object  of  his  care  and  atten- 
tion, he  found  himself  under  the  painful  necessity  of  returning  to  Eng- 
land."* 

It  was  at  this  critical  juncture,  when  a  French  descent  on  England 
might  have  inflicted  a  decisive  blow,  that  Thornton  forwarded  by 
express  to  Arthur  Lee  the  following  extraordinary  letter,  printed  here 
as  written : 

"8th  June,  1778. 
**I  would  advise  you  to  come  over  as  soon  as  possible  or  else  you  may  be  oblip^ed  to 
go  by  Holland ;  a  change  of  Ministry  is  settled  and  will  imedoatly  take  place,  Lord 
North  certainly  goes  out  Lord  Gower  comes  in  his  room,  Mr.  Jenkinsou  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer,  Lord  Stormond  is  mentioned  in  the  room  of  Lord  Siitfolk;  we  are 
little  afraid  of  their  French  bombast  of  Invading  us,  we  have  formed  a  Camp  at  Cox- 
heath  betwixt  Chatham  &  Maidstone  of  0  Batta'nsof  Regulars  two  of  Dragoons  and 
of  12  Reg'ts  of  Militia  there,  we  will  have  11,000  men  ready  to  receive  them,  we  have 
another  at  Wasley  Common  near  Brentwood  of  about  8,000  men  and  one  near  Win- 
chester of  7,000  men  so  that  you  see  we  are  well  prepared  to  receive  them,  let  that 
Incendiary  Jones  come  to  make  another  attempt  in  the  North,  hee'll  be  well  received 
by  Earl  Percy  and  two  regiments  of  Regulars  &  all  the  Militia  of  the  Counties  of 
Cumberland  Northuuiberland  &  Yorkshire.  Ad'l  Keppel  with  22  Ships  from  100  to  64 
&  2  Frigates  of  32  Guns  wait  only  for  the  Great  Ad'l  the  Duke  De  Charfcres  to  come 
out  of  Brest  to  attack  him,  we  make  ourselves  sure  of  him,  they  propose  giving  him 
the  late  Peter  Taylor's  House  near  Port  down,    our  friends  the  Scotch  have  behaved 


2  Keppel's  Life,  32,  33. 

547 


§151.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

most  nobly  they  have  coQipleated  Lord  McLeod,  John  Campbell  &  Lord  Seaford's 
Eeg'ts  the  rest  are  not  uear  compleated,  consider  what  number  of  men  it  will  take, 
and  what  Spirits  the  Welch  have  shew'd  their  Reg't  is  compleated,  L't  Col.  Picton  of 
the  12th  is  appointed  Col.  to  it.  Oh!  My  D'r  friend  very  bad  news  from  America, 
take  care  what  I  write  doth  not  come  to  the  Knowledge  of  the  Americans  at  Paris  it 
would  make  them  exult  too  much.  I  was  in  company  for  Several  Hours  with  Col. 
Fitzpatrick  just  returned  from  Philadelphia,  what  an  account  he  gives  of  the  despon- 
dency of  our  brave  fellows,  their  general  discoantent,  declaring  that  they  are  sacri- 
ficed by  this  Ministry,  and  talk  highly  of  Gen'l  Washington  etc. — the  guards  and 
several  of  the  weakest  Reg'ts  are  coming  home  with  Sir  Wm.  Howe  as  well  as  30 
frigates,  in  short  you  see  wee  are  abandonning  America.  Philadelphia  is  to  be  evacu- 
ated. New  York  is  to  be  kept  if  possible,  j^ou  that  always  cryed  up  this  Ministry, 
what  will  you  say  now. — Its  affirmed  for  certain,  that  Lord  N.  has  constantly  been 
opposed  by  the  rest  of  the  Council,  and  had  it  not  been  for  him,  you  would  have  had 
a  Declaration  of  war,  soon  after  the  French  Ambassador's  departure  from  here,  what 
pity  it  is  that  we  have  not  sailors  enough  to  compleat  that  fine  fleet  of  Ad'l  Keppel, 
we  want  above  4,000  men,  which  to  you  and  I  that  understand  nothing  of  the  sea, 
must  appear  a  great  number  wanting — if  you  knew  the  number  of  Men  of  War  put 
every  week  in  Commission  at  Deptford,  Chatham  &.  Sheerness  you  would  not  be 
afraid  for  Old  England,  the  Devil  in  it,  we  have  no  hands  to  mann  them,  your  let- 
ters I  have  received  I  have  given  you  this  long  detail,  to  shew  you  we  are  not  afraid 
of  the  French,  tho'  they  are  vastly  no  in  Ireland,  were  the  people  seem  ready  for  a 
revolt,  owing  to  the  want  of  work.  I'll  take  great  care  of  your  buckles. 
"  fareyewelle.  " 

(Indorsed  by  Arthur  Lee:) 

"Thornton,  June  8th."  * 

Of  this  letter,  in  which  Thornton  assumed  the  guise  of  an  English- 
man, who,  more  or  less  sympathizing  with  America,  was  nevertheless 
hostile  to  France,  the  object  evidently  was  to  lead  the  French  authori- 
ties to  think  that  England  was  so  thoroughly  aroused  and  armed  that 
a  successful  descent  on  her  coast  was  impracticable.  The  misstate- 
ments made  by  him  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  a  French  attack  are 
as  follows : 

(1)  The  gross  exaggeration  of  the  English  coast  defenses  and  armed 
camps. 

(2)  The  statement  that  Keppel  was  to  wait  for  an  attack,  whereas 
Keppel,  in  accordance  with  his  instructions,  was  about  to  put  to  sea  to 
attack  the  French. 

(3)  The  statement  that  Lord  North,  being  outvoted  in  the  cabinet 
when  urging  a  declaration  of  war  against  France,  was  about  to  resign, 
whereas  Lord  North  never  was  so  firmly  seated  as  prime  minister,  more 
satisfied,  and  more  satisfactory  to  his  royal  master  than  at  this  very 
period.t  North  must  have  smiled  when,  in  order  to  mislead  the  French 
ministry,  he  sent  word  to  it  through  Thornton  that  he  was  to  be  driven 
from  the  cabinet  on  account  of  his  warlike  propensities.  It  was  of 
course  important  to  hoodwink  France  as  to  England^s  warlike  prepara- 
tions ;  but  it  is  now  well  known  that  not  only  was  North  then  in  full 

*Leo  MSS.,  Harvard  Library. 

t  Very  strong  to  this  effect  is  George  Ill's  letter  to  Lord  North  of  June  2,  1778  ;  2 
Corr.,  etc.,  199. 

548 


CHAP.  XIT.]  LEE.  [§  151. 

royal  favor,  but  that  he  was  far  from  being  the  most  belligerent  mem- 
ber of  the  cabinet  over  which  he  presided. 

The  following  was  written  between  KeppePs  re-enforcement  after  his 
return  to  port  and  the  indecisive  action  on  July  27,  when  the  French 
fleet  came  out  to  meet  him  ; 

"24th  June,  1778. 
'a  wrote  yon  the  18th,  22d,  &  30tli  of  last  month,  the  lOtli  &  15th  of  this,  and  not  a 
line  from  yon  ;  if  yon  had  wrote  any  politicks  the  letter  is  stopt  I  suppose  in  France. 
I  am  afraid  yon  are  set  off  from  Paris,  I'll  follow  yon  where  ever  yon  are.  if  the 
French  have  a  mind  to  get  a  drubbing  they  may  come  ont  of  Brest.  Adl  Keppell  is 
there  watching  them  with  23  Ships  of  line  &  4  Frigates,  he  wont  begin  first  Hostil- 
ities ;  and  here  we  are  prepared  in  case  they  shonld  attempt  to  invade  ns.  at  Cox- 
heath  we'll  have  by  the  end  of  the  month  betwixt  11,000  to  12,000  men  under  the 
Comaud  of  Genl  Keppell.  I  make  no  doubt  wee  could  assemble  in  less  than  7  or  8 
days  about  25,000  men — we  are  very  uneassy  that  they  should  leave  the  North  so 
defencess,  having  hardly  any  troops  there,  however  I  hope  soon  they'll  take  care  of 
that  part  also,  yon  cant  conceive  how  hard  we  are  working  in  all  our  dock  yards  to 
get  the  shii^s  and  frigates  ready  for  Sea,  many  will  be  soon,  but  the  Devil  where  shall 
we  get  the  men  to  maun  them.  I  could  give  yon  the  Acct  of  them  but  dare  nor,  for 
feare  of  some  American  at  Paris  getting  it.  Sir  Wm  Howe  is  expected  every  day 
what  a  dnst  when  he  arrives.  We  have  a  report  that  Sir  H.  Clinton  has  attacked 
Genl  Washington  and  has  defeated  him,  but  its  only  a  report,  not  hearing  from  yon 
made  me  very  uneassy  for  feare  of  your  being  sick  which  made  me  resolved  to  set  off, 
but  uuiuckely  I  am  so  swell'd  that  I  am  obliged  to  wait  alittle  till  the  swelling  is  re- 
duced. I  am  not  able  to  stirr  from  my  bed.  I'll  bring  a  pair  of  fine  buckles,  if  you 
want  anything  Else  let  me  know  as  soon  as  you  have  received  this — 
*'fareyewell" 

(Addressed:)  **To  Mr.  Alexr  Johnston  No  5  rue  des  Battailles  a  Chaillot  proche 
Paris"  [being  a  name  used  by  Arthur  Lee  for  disguise.] 

(Indorsed  by  A.  Lee:)  "Thornton,  June  24th." 

Here,  again,  are  two  misstatements,  which  may  have  been  among  the 
causes  of  the  ill  success  of  France  in  the  engagements  of  July  23-27, 
1778.  In  the  tirst  place,  Kepi^eFs  fleet  is  spoken  of  as  twenty-three 
ships  of  the  line  and  four  frigates,  the  same  as  it  had  been  when  he  first 
weighed  anchor,  whereas,  while  he  bad  but  twenty-four  sail  of  the  line, 
four  frigates,  and  two  fire  ships  underhis  immediate  command,  arrange- 
ments were  then  being  perfected  by  which  he  was  to  be  joined,  w^hen  he 
set  sail,  by  six  more  ships  of  the  line.  In  the  second  place,  instead  of  being 
required  not  to  begin  hostilities,  his  orders  were  to  go  to  sea  and  attack 
the  French.  When  they  met  "  the  French  admiral  at  first  appeared 
desirous  of  bringing  on  a  general  engagement,  but  as  soon  as  he  be- 
came aware  of  the  increase  of  his  adversary's  force  he  relinquished  the 
design."*  The  result  was  indecisive,  each  fleet  returning  to  port.  To 
the  surprise  of  the  French  at  finding,  when  they  engaged,  that  the 

"^  2  Ktjppel's  Life,  37.  For  a  French  account,  see  2  Martin's  Decline  of  French 
Monarchy,  389;  5  Guizot's  France,  383.  According  to  Yonge  (1  History  of  British 
Navy,  341)  the  French  commander  **had  probably  been  ignorant  of  Keppel's  return  to 
England  for  re-enforcements.  At  all  events,  he  believed  him  to  be  far  weaker  than 
he  really  was,  and  at  first  showed  every  inclination  to  fight." 

549 


§  152.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

British  forces  were  equal  to  their  own,  nothiug  could  have  contributed 
more  effectively  than  Thornton's  letter  of  June  24,  supposing  it  to  have 
been  received  and  believed. 

Suspected  by  Franklin  and        §  152.  Did  Veroeuues  and  Frauklin  know  of 

Vergennes.  ■*  '^ 

Thornton's  relation  to  Lord  North  and  of  Ford's 
treacherj^  ?  Vergennes,  according  to  Doniol  and  Lomenie,  had  grounds 
to  suspect  that  Tjcc  was  intimate  with  men  who  were  in  British  pay;  * 
and  Franklin  had  grounds  to  suspect  Thornton  of  maintaining  clandes- 
tine relations  with  Lord  Korth.  But  we  have  no  adequate  reason  to 
believe  that  either  Vergennes  or  Franklin  had  any  reliable  knowledge 
that  Thornton  was  a  i)rofessioual  British  spy.  They  felt  that  they 
were  duped  by  the  information  he  gave  them  and  that  they  were  sub- 
jected to  great  perils  thereb}^ ;  they  knew  thai  information  of  their  own 
movements  reached  the  Britisli  minister  also  to  their  great  detriment ; 
but  it  is  not  likely  that  even  Franklin,  much  as  he  disliked  sensational 
collisions,  would,  if  he  had  been  informed  of  the  extent  of  Thornton's 
treachery,  have  kept  back  the  information  from  Congress.  But  he 
knew  enougli  to  justify  the  exercise  of  extreme  caution  in  his  dealings 
with  Arthur  Lee.  To  take  as  an  illustration,  his  withholding  the  time  and 
place  of  Gerard's  intended  departure  as  envoy  to  the  United  States; — 
if  there  was  a  doubt  as  to  the  loyalty  of  Lee's  secretary  it  was  essential 
that  the  information  should  have  been  withheld  from  Lee,  or  else  Gerard 
would  have  shared  the  fate  to  which  Laurens,  it  may  have  been  from 
similar  treacher^^  was  consigned. 

But  Franklin,  judging  him  in  the  light  we  now  have,  was  to  blame 
in  not  telling  Congress  what  he  knew  about  Thornton  and  thus  explain- 
ing the  grounds  of  his  reticence  to  Lee  and  Izard.  Of  Thornton's 
treachery  strong  probable  evidence  could  have  been  given  ;  of  the  per- 
nicious falsity  of  the  information  he  gave  Arthur  Lee  Congress  had  in 
its  hands  abundant  proof.  Had  Frauklin  said,  "  I  do  not  impugn  Ar- 
thur Lee's  loyalty,  but  he  gives,  not  from  disloyalty  but  from  narrow 
obstinate  pride,  his  confidence  to  dangerous  men,"  then  the  division 
in  Congress  as  to  the  merits  of  the  commissioners  in  Paris  would  not 

*  As  sustaining  this  view  we  have  the  following  extract  from  a  confidential  letter 
from  Stormont  to  AVeymouth,  dated  Dee.  28,  1777  : 

'•They  (the  French  ministers)  do  not  convey  anything  material  through  M.  Chau- 
mont  or  Beaumarchais.  M.  Gerard  treats  directly  with  Franklin  and  Deane.  {Lee 
is  little  trusted  and  has  not  the  real  secret)  He  (Gerard)  goes  to  Passy  in  the  night  and 
Franklin  and  Deane  make  him  nightly  visits  at  Versailles.  These  visits  have  been 
very  frequent  of  late  and  must  no  doubt  have  some  material  object.  One  point  may 
be  to  settle  the  execution  of  a  plan  which  Franklin  has  formed  and  which  this  court 
has,  T  am  assured,  adopted"  fof  sending  French  cruisers  to  America  with  supplies). 
(MSS.  in  Bancroft's  Collection.) 

As  to  French  distrust  of  Arthur  Lee,  see  3  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  631. 

Doniol,  vol.  1,  p.  368,  states  positively,  as  a  result  of  his  research,  that  the  spies  of 
the  British  foreign  office  had  access  to  Arthur  Lee's  papers. 

550 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  [§  153. 

have  been  so  perilously  close.  But  either  from  undue  security,*  or  from 
a  dislike  to  join  in  the  discussion  of  personal  issues  in  terms  so  reckless 
as  those  used  by  Lee  and  Izard,  their  letters  alone  were  before  Congress 
and  no  explanations  were  at  hand  from  him.  The  consequence  was  a 
peril  perhaps  as  great  as  any  to  which  the  cause  of  the  United  States 
was  subjected  during  the  war.  Had  Franklin  been  rei>udiated  and  the 
French  mission  and  the  peace  negotiations  left  in  the  hands  of  Arthur 
Lee,  the  French  alliance  would  probably  have  been  dissolved,  and  if 
there  had  been  a  British  acknowledgment  of  independence,  the  acknowl- 
edgment would  have  been  so  limited  both  as  to  terms  and  territory  as 
to  make  the  United  States  merely  a  satellite  of  the  British  crown. 

Powerful  family  influence.  §  153.  Washington  having  applied  to  Jay  for  in- 
formation as  to  the  cause  of  the  mismirnagement 
of  the  naval  aflairs  of  the  confederacy,  Jay,  in  reply,  in  a  letter  of  April 
26,  1779,t  traces  this  ''  to  the  family  compact.  Tiie  commercial  com- 
mittee was  equally  useless.  A  proposition  was  made  to  appoint  a  com- 
mercial agent  for  the  States  under  certain  regulations.  Opposition  was 
made.  The  ostensible  objections  were  various  ;  the  true  reason  was  its 
interfering  with  a  certain  commercial  agent  in  Europe  and  his  connec- 
tions." The  commercial  agent  was  William  Lee,  who,  by  the  action  of 
Arthur  Lee  and  Adams,  had  taken  Williams'  place  as  naval  agent  and 
who  occupied  by  congressional  appointment  the  commercial  agency.}: 
In  publications  in  the  Pennsylvania  Packet,  in  December,  1778,  the 
term  "  family  compact,"  as  used  by  Jay,  is  explained  by  the  statement 
that  by  four  brothers  of  the  Lee  family  were  held  two  seats  in  Congress, 
four  foreign  missions,  the  French  commercial  agency,  and  a  London 
aldermanship  under  Wilkes.  But  this  "  compact"  derived  its  chief 
strength  from  the  devoted  support  of  Samuel  Adams  and  other  New 
England  delegates  sympathizing  with  the  distinctive  political  views  of 
Richard  H.  and  Arthur  Lee. 

As  conuected  with  and  generally  voting  with  the  Lees  may  be  mentioned  William 
Shippeu,  a  delegate  in  1778-'79  from  Pennsylvania. 

"Joseph  Shippen's  youngest  son,  Dr.  William,  was  born  in  1712.  He  attained  real 
eminence  as  a  physician,  and  reached  the  age  of  ninety  with  the  love  of  all  who  knew 
him.  He  was  twice  elected  a  member  of  the  Continental  Congress,  and,  notwith- 
standing his  advanced  years  he  was,  as  its  journals  show,  constant  in  his  attendance. 
By  his  wife,  Susannah,  a  daughter  of  Joseph  Harrison,  of  this  city  (Philadelphia),  he 

*  Franklin's  silence  on  the  mere  personal  issue  of  incompatibility  may  be  explained 
by  his  Ignorance.  At  the  very  time  of  Arthur  Lee's  letters  to  Congress  assailing 
Franklin,  their  social  relations  were  apparently  undisturbed,  Lee  frequently  dining 
with  Frankhu.     (1  Arthur  Lee's  Life,  348  ;  2  Parton's  Franklin,  256.) 

Carmichael's  report  of  May  3,  1779,  adverse  to  Arthur  Lee,  is  in  the  Sparks  Collec- 
tion, Harvard  College,  volume  49,  part  1,  page  25.  In  this  report  is  quoted  a  letter  of 
d'Estaing  to  the  effect  that  in  his  opinion  secrets  of  the  legation  reached  England 
through  the  imprudence  of  Arthur  Lee- 

t  See  infra,  under  that  date ;  2  Jay's  Life,  47. 

\  See  infra,  5  156 ;  and  also  infra,  ^^  175-176. 

551 


§  1 54.]  DIPLOMATIC    COERESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XII. 

Avas  the  father  of  Prof.  William  Sliii>i)en,  bom  iu  1736.  Prof.  William  Sbippen  studied 
here  with  his  father,  and  afterwards  abroad,  under  the  celebrated  Hunters,  iu  Eng- 
land. In  1776  he  was  appointed  'chief  physiciau  for  the  flying  c.un[>.'  In  March, 
L777,  he  laid  before  Congress  a  plan  for  tlie  reorganization  of  a  hospital  department, 
which,  with  some  modifications,  was  adopted,  and  on  the  11th  of  April  following  he 
was  unanimously  elected  'director-general  of  all  the  military  hospitals  for  the  armies 
of  the  United  States.'  He  died  in  Germautown  on  the  11th  of  July,  1808.  Thacher, 
in  his  medical  biography,  speaks  of  these  Shippens,  father  and  son,  iirhigh  but  just 
terms.  Dr.  Wistar's  eulogium  on  the  professor  (1809)  is  a  graceful  and  charming  tribute. 
Professor  Chippen  was  married  in  London  about  the  year  1760  to  Alice,  a  daughter  of 
Col.  Thomas  Lee,  governor  of  the  province  of  Virginia."  (6  Penn.  Mag.  of  History, 
etc.,  li),  16.) 

We  liave  already  seen  that  it  was  proposed  by  Arthur  and  William 
Lee  that  Franklin  should  be  sent  to  Vienna,  where  he  woukl  not  have 
been  received ;  that  Arthur  should  have  sole  charge  of  the  Paris  mis- 
sion, and  William  to  go  either  to  Berlin  or  The  Hague,  retaining,  with 
his  nephew,  more  or  less  hold  on  the  agency  at  Nantes.*  William  after- 
wards sugaested  Brussels  as  his  proper  mission,  t 

Of  the  members  of  this  remarkable  family  w^e  may  say  that  they  were 
distinguished  not  merely  for  the  tenacity  with  which  they  clang  to 
public  office,  but  for  the  strong  attachment  they  showed  to  each  other, 
and  lor  the  affection  they  inspired  in  men  so  high  minded  and  patriotic 
as  Samuel  Adams  and  Thomas  McKean.  It  is  impossible,  in  view  of  this 
affection  as  well  as  of  their  own  personal  history,  to  doubt  either  the 
honesty  or  the  loyalty  of  these  brothers.  But,  while  this  is  the  case,  it  is 
difficult  not  to  see  that,  constituting  a  group  holding  so  many  important 
offices,  they  formed,  when  we  take  into  consideration  their  distinctive 
views  as  to  the  danger  of  executive  power  in  any  department,  the  fanati- 
cism with  which  they  urged  these  views,  and  the  personal  littleness 
they  mingled  with  their  political  differences,  a  dangerous  element  in  the 
Htate.f  And  this  danger  was  augmented  by  the  unreasoning  devotion 
given  by  this  powerful  family  and  its  friends  to  Arthur  Lee,  so  that  his 
wildest  prejudices  became  theirs. 

Hia  course  after  his  return.  ^  154   Qf  Arthur  Lcc^s  public  Career  after  his 

return  to  America,  Hives,  in  his  Biography  of 
Madison  (Vol.  1,  p.  341,)  thus  writes: 

"  He  returned  to  America  in  1780,  and  was  soon  chosen  a  member  of  the  legislature 
of  Virginia.  By  that  body  he  was  elected,  iu  December,  1781,  one  of  the  delegates  of 
the  State  in  Congress.  His  talents  were  of  a  high  order;  but  notwithstanding  the 
many  and  undoubted  proofs  he  had  given  of  his  attachment  to  the  interests  and  lib- 
erties of  America,  his  unfriendliness  to  Dr.  Franklin,  and  his  resentment  of  the  want 
of  confidence  in  him  manifested  by  the  French  Government,  were  supposed  to  have 
produced  in  his  mind  a  sentiment  of  disaffection  to  the  alliance  itself.  The  relations, 
moreover,  of  particular  intimacy  which  he  was  known  to  have  held  with  Lord  Shel- 
burne  and  other  persons  of  rank  and  consideration  in  England  naturally  made  his 
conduct  and  opinions  an  object  of  jealousy  at  the  present  moment. 

"A  letter  addressed  by  him  to  Mr.  Mann  Page,  a  member  of  the  house  of  delegates 


Supra,  ^  126.  t  Ivfra,  §  177.  t  See  infra,  $  209. 

552 


CHAP.  XII.]  LEE.  [§1^4 

of  Virginia,  of  wbicli  body  Mr.  Lee  himself  was  also  a  member  (there  beiug  at  that 
period  no  legal  incompatibility  between  a  seat  in  Congress  and  one  in  the  State  legis- 
lature), was  spoken  of  as  containing  highly  obnoxious  opinions.  This  led  to  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolution: 

"  *  That  the  committee  of  privileges  and  elections  do  inquire  into  the  subject-matter 
of  a  letter  said  to  have  been  written  by  Arthur  Lee,  esq.,  a  delegate  of  this  State  in 
Congress,  to  Mann  Page,  esq.,  a  member  of  this  house,  containing  matter  injurious  to 
the  public  interests  ;  and  that  the  said  committee  do  call  for  persons  and  papers  for 
their  inforn)ation.' 

"A  report  was  made  by  the  committee  exculpating  Mr.  Lee,  on  the  ground  of  his 
letter  being  a  private  and  confidential  one,  not  intended  for  the  public  eye,  and  be- 
cause his  former  services  placed  him  above  the  suspicion  of  designs  inimical  to  the 
State  or  America  in  general.  A  substitute,  moved  by  Mr.  Henry  Tazewell,— to  the 
effect  that  the  sentiments  contained  in  the  letter  were  such  as,  exposed  to  the  public 
eye,  'might  create  in  our  allies  a  distrust  of  our  representatives,'  and  the  writing  of 
it  therefore  was  not  to  be  justified,  — received  the  votes  of  a  considerable  number  of 
most  respectable  members;  but  the  report  of  tlie  committee  was  finally  adopted  by  a 
majority  of  the  house.  This  result  however  did  not  produce  acquiescence.  A  few 
days  afterwards  a  formal  motion  was  made  that  Mr.  Lee  be  recalled  from  Congress; 
and  at  the  same  time  information,  subscribed  by  distinguished  and  responsible  names, 
was  laid  before  the  house  by  a  leading  member  in  his  place,*  casting  further  sus- 
picions upon  his  political  conduct  and  sentiments. 

"The  sequel  of  the  motion  is  thus  given  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  Edmund  Randolph  to 
Mr.  Madison  of  the  27th  of  December,  1782: 

'*  'The  attack  which  I  hinted  at  in  my  last  as  being  made  u]3on  Mr.  Lee  was  pushed 
with  great  vigor.  Upon  the  motion  for  his  recall  the  ayes  were  39,  and  the  noes  41. 
His  defense  was  pathetic.  It  called  upon  the  assembly  to  remember  his  services,  to 
protect  his  honor,  and  not  to  put  it  out  of  his  power  to  profit  his  country  hj  his  labors. 
The  failure  of  some  of  his  enemies  to  attend  alone  saved  him.  Should  Henry  come 
to  the  next  session,  it  seems  impossible  he  should  be  again  elected.'" 

Of  Arthur  Lee's  services  in  Congress  we  nave  the  following  notice  by 

himself: 

'T  do  not  see  of  what  material  use  my  attendance  here  can  be,  where  I  can  only 
lament  what  I  can  not  prevent,  and  make  vain  efforts  to  redeem  an  infatuated  ma- 
jority from  the  bondage  of  folly  and  private  interest."  t  (Arthur  Lee  to  Samuel  Adams, 
Philadelphia,  April  21,  1782;  Bancroft  MSS.) 

In  July,  1782,  Arthur  Lee,  when  in  Congress,  moved  for  a  committee 
to  examine  into  the  financial  management  of  Franklin.  Franklin's 
friends  concurred  in  the  resolution,  and  the  committee  consisted  of 
Lee,  Izard,  and  Whartou.  A  majority  of  the  committee  therefore  was 
in  bitter  antagonism  to  Franklin.  But  the  majority  failed  to  discover 
any  mismanagement  on  which  to  report. 

*  "This  member  was  Col.  John  Francis  Mercer,  just  chosen  a  delegate  to  Congress 
in  the  place  of  Mr.  Edmund  Randolph,  resigned.  (See  journal  of  house  of  delegates, 
Oct.  sess.,  1782,71,72.)" 

tDeane's  apostacy  was  at  first  nsed  by  Arthur  Lee  with  great  effect  in  his  own  vin- 
dication ;  but  when  it  was  found  that  the  Frencli  ministry  and  Franklin  were  as  ready 
to  take  strong  ground  against  Deane  as  was  Lee,  the  effect  of  this  argument  wore 
away. 

553 


CHAPTER  Xiri. 


JAY. 
Services  as  to  foreign affidrs      §  155.  John  Jay,  of  Has^iiciiot  (lesceiit,  of  a  family 

m  Congress.  ^  .70  7  j 

distinguished  for  social  eiuineuce  aud  moral  excel- 
lence, was  bred  to  the  bar,  and  took,  in  his  earliest  manhood,  decided 
ground  in  resistance  of  British  aggression.  He  entered  Congress  in  Sep- 
tember, 1774,  when  he  was  in  his  twenty-ninth  year,  and  remained,  with 
the  intermission  of  eighteen  mouths,  when  he  acted  as  chief-justice  of 
IS'ew  York,  an  active  and  useful  member,  until  he  accepted,  in  Septem- 
ber, 1779,  the  mission  to  Spain.  When  in  Congress  his  services  to  the 
revolutionary  cause  were  of  high  value.  He  was  chosen  on  ISTovember 
29,  1778,  a  member  of  the  committee  of  correspondence,  to  whom  the 
diplomatic  correspondence  of  Congress  was  primarily  intrusted.  That 
his  election,  as  well  as  that  of  Franklin,  was  objected  to  by  Arthur 
Lee  has  been  already  noticed,  and  it  is  not  unlikely,  from  what  we  can 
gather  ^om  the  subsequent  proceedings,  that  it  was  not  acceptable  to 
Samuel  Adams  or  John  Adams.  But  this  certainly  could  not  have 
been  from  any  lukewarmuess  of  Jay  in  the  rev^olutionary  cause.  By  no 
one  was  more  surrendered  for  the  advancement  of  that  cause;  by  no 
one  was  British  misrule  denounced  more  sternly,  nor  British  cruelty 
regarded  with  a  more  solemn  feeling  of  reprobation.  He  would  rather, 
he  declared  to  Gouveneur  Morris  on  October  8,  1776,  see  the  district 
where  his  family  lived,  and  with  which  his  dearest  associations  were 
connected,  become  a  desert,  than  have  it  again  under  the  British  flag. 
The  same  determination  was  expressed  with  equal  earnestness  by  him 
to  the  same  correspondent  on  April  29,  1778,  coupled  With  the  expres- 
sion of  a  belief  that  any  '' influence  of  Lord  North's  conciliatory  plan  is 
happily  counterbalanced  by  the  intelligence  from  France."  And  he 
subsequently,  on  April  26,»  1779,  took  the  opportunity  to  speak  to  Wash- 
ington of  the  kindly  influence  exercised  in  Philadelphia  by  the  French 
minister  Gerard. 

The  pains  that  were  taken  to  enable  our  diplomatic  correspondence 
to  elude  the  scrutiny  of  the  enemy  have  been  already  noticed.*  Among 
other  devices,  Deane,  when  in  Paris,  "  was  provided  with  an  invisible 
ink,  and  Mr.  Jay  (an  active  member  of  the  committee  of  correspond- 
ence), with  a  chemical  preparation  for  rendering  the  writing  legible. 

*  Supra,  ^  105. 

554 


CHAP.  XIII  ]  JAY.  [§156. 

But  as  letters  apparently  blank  might  excite  suspicion  and  lead  to  ex- 
periments that  might  expose  the  contrivance,  Mr.  Deane's  communica- 
tions were  written  on  large  sheets,  commencing  with  a  short  letter  in 
common  ink,  relative  to  some  fictitious  person  or  business,  and  under 
a  feigned  name,  and  the  residue  of  the  paper  was  occupied  by  his  dis- 
patches in  the  invisible  ink,"*  The  copies  of  Deane's  dispatches  on  file 
in  the  Department  of  State  were  in  this  way  procured.! 

His  constructive  policy,  §  15G.  It  has  bccu  already  observed  that  Con- 

ami  opposition  to  cou-  "^ 

gressionai  cabals.  grcss  was  divided  iuto  two  distinct  schools,  each 

equally  determined  to  carry  on  the  war  until  independence  was  secured, 
but  one  of  them  distinctively  expulsive  and  liberative  in  its  character, 
making  it  its  controlling  object  to  get  rid  of  the  British  yoke,  leaving 
the  government  to  remain  in  congressional  hands ;  while  the  other, 
joining  to  the  expulsive  or  liberative  element  the  remedial  or  construct- 
ive, sought  not  nierely  to  get  rid  of  the  bad  government  of  Britain,  but 
to  set  up  a  good  government,  in  which  the  executive  department  would 
have  a  co  ordinate  place. J:  In  the  latter  school,  with  Washington,  Mor- 
ris, Franklin,  and  Livingston,  Jay  naturally  took  his  place.  To  his 
orderly  and  exact  mind  government  by  a  congress,  absorbing  in  itself 
or  through  its  committees  all  government,  military,  financial,  and 
diplomatic,  was  in  defiance  of  the  teachings  both  of  poliiical  i^hilosophy 
and  of  political  experience ;  and  this  repugnance  was  intensified  by 
the  exhibition  in  Congress  of  ^'as  much  intrigue  as  in  the  Vatican." 
Washington  having  written  to  him,  he  being  President  of  Congress  at 
the  time,  to  inquire  as  to  the  mismanagement  of  the  navy,  Jay,  on 
April  20,  1779,§  replied  as  follows : 

*' While  the  mai'itime  affairs  of  the  continent  continue  under  the  direction  of  a 
committee,  they  will  be  exposed  to  all  the  consequences  of  want  of  system,  attention, 
and  knowledge.  The  marine  committee  consists  of  a  delegate  from  each  State  ;  it 
linctuates;  new  members  constantly  coming  iu  and  old  ones  going  out;  threeor  four, 
indeed,  have  remained  in  it  from  the  beginning  ;  and  few  members  understand  even 
the  state  of  onr  naval  affairs,  or  have  tuna  or  inclination  to  attend  to  them.  But  ichy 
is  not  this  system  cJiangedl  II  is,  in  mu  opinion,  inconvenient  to  the  family  compact.  The 
commercial  committee  was  equally  useless.  A  proposition  was  made  to  appoint  a  commer- 
cial ayentfor  the  Slates  under  certain  regulations.  Opposition  was  made.  The  ofJerisible 
objections  were  various.  The  true  reason  was  its  interfering  with  a  certain  commercial 
agent  in  Europe  and  his  connections."  \\ 

*  1  Jay's  Life,  64. 

t  Curious  details  of  the  early  life  of  Jay  are  given  by  Judge  Jones  in  his  History 
of  New  Yorlr,  2,  223  n.,  where  Jay's  strong  early  repugnance  to  the  loyalists  is  uujnsrly 
attributed  to  personal  disappointment.  In  the  same  chapter  of  the  same  work  there 
is  an  interesting  sketch  of  James  Jay,  the  oldest  brother  in  the  family,  who  went  to 
England  to  practice  medicine,  was  there  knighted,  but  returned  to  America  at  the 
Revolution,  and  took  strong  patriot  ground. 

t  See  Supra,  $$  2,  4,  11. 

^  See  infra,  of  that  date,  2  Jay's  Life,  47,  48. 

II  William  Lee,  see  supra,  $  153.  As  to  the  opposition  to  him  of  Arthur  Lee,  see 
supra,  ^  146. 

555 


§  157.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIII. 

The  staud  taken  by  Jay,  however,  was  uot  limited  to  opposition  to 
this  ^'  family  compact,"  strengthened  as  it  was  by  strong  collateral  sup- 
port.* He  took  resolute  ground  in  favor  of  vesting  in  Washington  the 
powers  incidental  to  a  commander-in-chief,  and  it  was  to  his  firm  and 
constant  protests  against  the  management  of  foreign  as  well  as  domestic 
aifairs  by  congressional  committees  that  the  gradual  growth  of  the 
executive  department  system  is  to  be  largely  traced.t 

On  the  Spanish  mission.  ^  157.  September,  1779,  Jay  was  elected  minister 
to  Spain.  The  condition  of  our  relations  with  Spain 
made  his  acceptance  of  this  most  trying  and  difficult  post  even  more 
of  a  sacrifice  than  at  the  time  it  appeared.  Aside  from  the  general 
objection,  heretofore  noticed,  that  it  was  indelicate  as  well  as  impolitic 
to  send  a  minister  to  a  foreign  court  which  had  not  consented  to  receive 
him,|  there  were  i)eculiar  reasons,  already  noticed,  why  a  minister 
should  not  at  that  moment,  without  some  such  understanding,  have 
been  forced  upon  Spain. §  Jay's  own  narrative  of  his  entrance  on  and 
his  work  in  this  mission  are  given  in  full  in  the  following  volumes,||  and 
are  embodied  in  a  series  of  dispatches,  as  distinguished  for  their  dig- 
nity and  their  ability  as  they  are  for  the  fidelity  with  which,  under  circum- 
stances singularly  difficult,  he  discharged  the  trust  imposed  on  him.  The 
only  criticism  that  could  be  justly  made  on  liis  course  is  that  by  an  undue 
austerity  of  manner  he  shut  himself  ofi"  from  those  conciliatory  approaches 
by  which  diplomatic  arrangements  can  sometimes  be  best  eftected.^f 
His  attitude  as  to  Spain's  confiicting  claims  is  thus  stated  by  him  in 
a  fragment  of  autobiography: 

"  I  was  6aily  convinced  that,  provided  we  could  obtain  independence  and  a  speedy 
peace,  ^\e  could  not  justify  protracting  the  war  and  hazarding  the  event  of  it  for  the 
sake  of  conquering  the  Floridas,  to  which  we  had  no  title,  or  retainiug  the  uaviga- 
tion  of  the  Mississippi,  which  we  should  not  want  this  age,  and  of  which  we  niiglit 
probably  acquire  a  partial  use  with  the  consent  of  Spain.  It  was  therefore  my  opin- 
ion that  we  should  quit  all  claim  to  the  Floridas,  and  grant  Spain  the  navigation  of 
her  river  below  our  territories  on  her  giving  us  a  convenient  free  port  on  it,  under 
regulations  to  be  specified  in  a  treaty,  provided  they  would  acknowledge  our  inde- 
pendence, defend  it  with  their  arms,  and  grant  us  either  a  proper  sum  of  money  or  an 
annual  subsidy  for  a  certain  number  of  years.  Sucli,  then,  w^as  the  situation  of  things 
as  to  induce  nie  to  think  that  a  conduct  so  decided  and  spirited  on  the  part  of  S[)ain 
would  speedily  l)ring  about  a  peace,  and  that  Great  Britain,  rather  than  hazard  the 
loss  of  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  and  the  islands  by  continuing  the  war,  wonld  yield  the 
Floridas  to  Spain  and  independence  to  us.  But  when  Spain  afterwards  declared  war 
for  objects  that  did  uot  include  ours,  and  in  a  manner  uot  very  civil  to  our  independ- 
ouce,  I  became  persuaded  that  we  ought  not  to  cede  to  her  any  of  our  rights,  and  of 
c>urse  that  wo  should  retain  and  insist  upon  our  right  to  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi."  ** 


*  See  supi-a,  ^  153.  H  See  citations  in  1  Bancroft's  Hist,  of 

t  See  infra,  ^  209  ;  supra  ^  11, 146.  Constitution,  292,32.'3. 

t  Supra,  $  15^.  **  1   Jay's  Life,  100.     For  analysis  of 

^  Supra,  §  86^.  his  Spanish  papers,  see  index,  title 

II  See  index,  title  Jay.  Jay. 

556 


CHAP,  xiil]  jay.  [§  158. 

At  the  peace  negotiations.        ^  158.  xiic  coiirse  of  Jiiy  ill  reference  to  the  peace 

negotiations  in  Paris  is  considered  in  another 
work,*  and  will,  in  a  fntnre  volume  of  this  series,  be  discussed  in  de- 
tail in  connection  with  the  peace  correspondence.  Two  points,  how- 
ever, may  be  liere  noticed.  In  the  first  ])lace,  it  now  appears  that  the 
famous  Marbois  letter,t  lianded  to  Jay  by  one  of  tlie  Britisii  loyalists, 
and  relied  on  by  him  as  showing  France's  duplicity,  was  disavowed  by 
Marbois ;  and  there  are,  aside  from  this,  very  strong-  reasons  to  distrust 
its  genuineness.  I  In  the  second  place,  we  have  in  the  correspondence 
of  George  III  a  new  light  thrown  on  the  action  taken  by  Jay  in  con- 
sequence of  this  letter.  "The  day  after  he  received  Marbois'  letter  he 
dispatched,"  says  Jay's  biographer,  §  "a  secret  agent  to  the  British  sec- 
retary of  state,  concealing  his  mission  not  only  from  the  French  Gov- 
ernment but  also  from  Dr.  Franklin.  This  agent  was  Mr.  Vaughan,  an 
English  gentleman  then  residing  in  Paris,  and  well  affected  to  the 
American  cause.  He  was  instructed  to  represent  to  the  British  minis- 
ter that  without  an  acknowledgment  of  American  independence  as  a 
l)reliminary  to  a  treaty,  neither  confidence  nor  peace  could  be  reasona- 
bly expected;  that  as  Britain  could  not  conquer  the  United  States,  it 
was  her  interest  to  conciliate  them ;  that  England  should  not  be  de- 
ceived by  the  affected  moderation  of  France,  since  the  United  States 
would  not  treat  except  on  an  equal  footing ;  that  it  was  the  interest  of 
France  bnt  not  of  England  to  postpone  the  acknowledgment  of  inde- 
pendence to  a  general  peace;  that  a  hope  of  dividing  the  fisheries  with 
France  would  be  futile,  as  America  would  not  make  peace  without 
them;  that  the  very  attempt  to  deprive  the  United  States  of  the  navi- 
gation of  the  Mississippi,  or  of  that  river  as  a  boundary,  would  irritate 
and  inflame  America;  and  that  such  attempts,  if  successful,  would  sow 
the  seeds  of  future  war  in  the  very  treaty  of  peace." 

It  will,  however,  be  seen  hereafter  ||  that  Benjamin  Yaughan,  while  a 
gentleman  of  great  amiability  and  personal  worth,  was,  when  Jay 
sent  him  without  Franklin's  knowledge  on  a  confidential  mission  to 
the  British  ministry,  in  the  emplo-y  of  that  ministry  as  secret  agent 
at  Paris.  It  is  due  to  Jay  to  say  that  he  was  ignorant  of  this  fact, 
though  he  would  have  been  notified  of  it  had  he  consulted  Franklin. 
One  of  the  most  singular  incidents  of  this  transaction  is  that  George 
III,  seeking  double  treachery  in  thus  sending  back  to  him  his  own 
agent  in  the  guise  of  an  agent  ftom  the  American  legation,  regarded  it 
as  a  peculiarly  subtle  machination  of  Franklin,  which  it  was  his  duty  to 
baffle  by  utterly  discrediting  Benjamin  Vaughan.  It  should  be  added 
that  Franklin's  affection  for  Benjamin  Yaughan  was  in  no  wise  dimin- 

*  3  Dig.  Int.  Law,  2  ed.,  pp.  9213  ff. 

t  Marbois  to  Vergennes,  March  13,  1782,  infra. 

tibid.,  note  thereto,  and  see  index,  title  Marbois. 

^  1  Jay's  Life,  147, 148. 

II  Infra,  $  198. 

557 


§  158.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIII. 

ished  by  Yaughan's  assumption,  with  au  honesty  which  no  one  who 
knew  him  would  question,  of  this  peculiar  kind  of  mediatorship.  And 
in  Jay  Franklin's  confidence  was  unabated.  He  more  than  once  said 
that  no  one  could  be  found  more  suited  than  Jay  to  represent  the 
United  States  abroad.  And  when,  in  view  of  deatb,  he  prepared  to 
settle  his  estate,  he  selected  Jay  as  his  executor.  To  some  extent  this 
adds  a  new  evidence  of  the  straightness  of  Franklin's  business  affairs 
as  well  as  of  his  past  business  transactions ;  for  had  tbere  been  anything 
in  the  papers  that  in  any  way  was  not  open  and  fair.  Jay's  great  intelli- 
gence and  severe  integrity  would  have  made  him  almost  the  last  person 
in  whose  hands  an  intelligent  testator  would  have  placed  such  paperb\ 
And  the  correspondence  connected  with  this  selection,  as  well  as  with 
other  incidents  at  the  close  of  Franklin's  life,  shows  how  high  was  the 
regard  and  respect  with  which  he  regarded  Jay.* 

*  For  a  discriininatiug  notice  of  Jay,  see  Trescot's  Diplomacy  of  the  Revohitiou, 
126  #. 

Luzerne,  in  his  dispatches  to  Vergenues,  refers  to  Jay's  attachment  to  Franklin, 
and  speaks  of  Jay  expressing  to  his  friends  in  Congress  entire  confidence  in  and 
attachment  to  his  colleague. 

558 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

SILAS  DEANE. 

His  congressional  career.  ^  159.  gHas  Deaiie  was  borii  ill  Grotou,  Connect- 
icut, in  Au<?ust,  1737,  and  after  graduating  at 
Yale  in  1758  be  went  into  business  at  Wetbersfield,  Connecticut,  and 
afterwards  taught  school  and  practiced  law.  In  the  earl;y  revolution- 
ary movements  he  took  an  active  part,  and  was  a  delegate  from  Con- 
necticut to  the  First  and  Second  Congresses,  though  from  some  local 
jealousy  he  was  not  elected  to  the  Third.  He  remained,  however,  in 
Philadelphia,  and  he  appears  to  have  been  assiduous  there,  and  continued 
to  show  unabated  interest  in  revolutionary  affairs.  When  an  agency  to 
France  to  borrow  money  and  make  purchases  of  supplies  was  contem- 
plated, it  was  not  strange  that,  with  his  business  aptitude,  he  should 
have  thought  himself  and  been  thought  of  by  others  as  fitted  for  the 
post.  To  the  mercantile  men  in  Congress,  and  especially  to  Morris^  his 
election  in  February,  1776,  as  American  business  agent  at  Paris  was 
primarily  due.* 

"Mr.  Silas  Deane,  of  Connecticut,  a  member  of  the  First  and  Second  Congresses, 
had  lost  his  election  to  the  Third ;  but,  instead  of  going  home,  remained  in  Philadel- 
phia, and  (so  says  jealous  and  suspicious  John  Adams)  applied  to  the  secret  committee 
for  an  appointment  abroad.  Mr.  Adams,  I  should  observe,  was  not  well  pleased  at 
being  left  out  of  so  important  a  committee.  It  appears  that  Arthur  Lee,  true  to  his 
character,  had  sent  over  a  letter  to  a  member  of  Congress,  advisiug  him  to  look 
■well  to  John  Jay,  for  he  was  not  to  he  trusted.  This  ridiculous  letter,  having  been 
too  freely  handed  about  by  Mr.  Adams'  friends,  seems  to  have  been  among  the  causes 
vrhich  led  to  the  selection  of  John  Jay  for  one  of  the  secret  committee;  also  one  of 
the  causes  of  John  Adams'  exclusion.  Bo  that  as  it  may,  Mr.  John  Adams'  comments 
upon  the  committee,  their  proceedings,  and  their  servants,  are  tinged  with  ill  humor, 
and  are  not  to  be  taken  as  absolute  gospel. 

''Silas  Deane  was  a  native  of  Connecticut,  and  a  graduate  of  Yale  College,  who 
began  life  in  the  usual  New  England  way  by  keeping  school,  and  afterwards  subsided 
from  his  school  to  a  law  office.  He  practiced  law  and  carried  on  trade,  accjuirod 
some  property  and  some  consideration  in  his  province.  As  a  member  of  Congress  he 
appears  to  have  been  assiduous  and  well  esteemed;  and  it  was  natural  the  committee 
should  incline  to  employ  one  who  had  become  perfectly  informed  of  American  affairs 
by  a  year's  attendance  in  Congress  and  by  serving  on  many  leading  committees. 
Congress  also  stood  high  in  the  esteem  of  mankind.   There  were  few  circles  in  Europe 

*A  collection  of  the  correspondence  of  Silas  Deane  in  1774-'76  is  given  in  volume  2 
of  the  Papers  of  the  Connecticut  Historical  Society.  The  collection  ceases  with  his 
departure  for  Europe,  and  leaves  no  question  of  his  fidelity  to  the  revolutionary 
cause  during  the  period  in  question. 

559 


§  160.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIV. 

(and  none  worth  entering)  in  which  a  member  of  the  Congress  of  1774  and  1775 
woukl  not  have  been  received  with  homage  and  enthusiasm.  Mr.  Deane,  we  ^re 
assured,  was  a  man  of  somewhat  striking  manners  and  good  api)earance,  accustomed 
to  live  and  eutertaiu  iu  liberal  style,  and  fond  of  showy  equipage  and  apj)ointment. 
*  *  *  He  could  not  speak  French  with  any  fluency,  nor  write  it  at  all.  (2  Par- 
ton's  Franklin,  114.) 

His  activity  in  Paris.  §  1(50.  As  wiU  be  Seen  from  the  correspondeDce 

hereaiter  given,  Deane  received  bis  instructions  on 
March  3,  1776,  and  entered  on  his  duties  in  Paris  in  the  following  July. 
At  first  these  duties  Jinvolved  him  in  affairs  not  strictly  within  the 
range  of  his  mission.  He  occupied  a  semi-official  relation  to  the  French 
ministry;  and  he  felt  it  requisite,  under  the  circumstances,  that  he 
should  report  to  Congress  what  he  learned  through  this  and  other 
channels  of  European  politics  as  affecting  the  Revolution.  Military 
questions,  as  well  as  financial  and  diplomatic,  pressed  upon  him.  Not 
only  had  he  to  deal,  under  circumstances  not  a  little  perplexing,  with 
Beaumarchais  as  to  supplies,*  but  numerous  French  officers  sought 
commissions  from  him,  sometimes  from  enthusiasm,  sometimes  from 
ambition,  sometimes  from  greed.  So  far  as  concerns  accounts,  there 
is  no  reason,  it  will  hereafter  be  argued,  to  doubt  his  exactness ;  and 
Jie  was_eminently  successful  in  obtaining  supplies  which  were  necessary 
to  carry  on  the  wa^.  But  when  put  of  (his  particular  line  his  want  of 
political  capacity  was  soon  .manifested.  He  greatly  embarrassed  Con- 
gress by  indiscreet  arrangements  with  French  officers,  some  of  whom 
he  ought  never  to  have  employed,  and  many  of  whom  Congress  was 
unable  to  retain.  In  his  suggestion  that  Count  Broglie  should  be 
called  to  America  as  commander-in-chief  he  displaj^ed  a  want  of  delicacy 
and  of  political  knowledge  that  can^nly  be  explained  on  the  hypothe- 
sis that  his  judgment  was  bewildered  by  the  splendor  of  the  new 
atmosphere  in  which  he  was  suddenly  immersed. t  This,  however,  was 
but  a  temporary  diversion,  since,  on  Franklin^  arrival,  Deaue^diplo- 
matic  functions,  such  as  they  were,  came  to  au_absolute  end.  So  far, 
however,  as  concerned  accounting— a  branch  of  industry  to  which 
Franklin's  almost  universal  genius  did  not  extend — Deane  continued,  as 
long  as  he  remained  in  France,  to  show  commendable  activity  and  zeal. 
Things  stood  in  this  position  when  Arthur  Lee  arrived ;  and  it  was 
very  soon  seen  that  Arthur  Lee  was  not  willing  to  submit  to  the 
sui)remacy  of  Franklin  in  di})lomacy  or  to  the  supremacy  of  Deane  in 
accounts.  It  was  with  Deane  that  Arthur  Lee  first  came  in  collision.! 
Deane  had,  or  was  supposed  to  have,  a  considerable  amount  of  busi- 
ness patronage,  which  to  Arthur  Lee's  eye  gave  considerable  oppor- 
tunity for  specubtion;  and  not  only  did  he  suppose  that  Deane  made 
use  of  this  opportunity  for  his  own  benefit,  but  he  desired  to  have  the 
entire  control  of  the  business  side  of  the  mission  placed  in  the  hands  of 


See  supra,  $  56  jf.  t  See,  as  to  this  singular  episode,  supra,  $  77. 

tSee3  Doiiiol,  173,  174. 

560 


CHAP.  XIV.]  DIOANE.  [§  160. 

his  brother,  William  Lee,  then,  as  will  be  hereafter  noticed,  an  alder- 
man of  London,  elected  as  such  on  the  Wilkes  ticket,  and  a  devoted 
adherent  of  Wilkes.  Arthur  Lee's  suspicions  of  Deane  were  at  once 
communicated  to  Congress,  and  after  much  discussion  a  resolution  was 
passed  on  December  8,  1777,  recalliui:^  him  to  America,  the  reason  given 
being  the  importance  of  obtaining  information  as  to  the  state  of  attViirs 
in  Europe.  Deane  at  once  took  passage  for  America,  bringing  with  him 
letters  of  confidence  and  esteem  both  from  Franklin  and  Vergennes. 

As  to  Arthur  Lee's  statement  that  Deane  "  made  £00,000  sterling 
while  he  was  employed  here,"  Sparks  *  remarks : 

"  Deane  vrent  to  France  with  money  of  his  own  in  his  pocket ;  how  much  he  can  not 
say,  but  he  had  something.  He  staid  there  a  year  and  eight  months  and  then  returned 
to  Phihidelphia,  where  he  remained  eighteen  mouths  longer,  attending  on  Congress. 
During  this  hitter  period  he  certainly  could  have  disposed  of  money  for  no  other  pur- 
pose than  his  expenses,  for  he  was  engaged  in  no  business  whatever.  It  follows  that  this 
great  sum  of  £60,000,  or  more  than  $-250,000,  must  have  been  still  in  Europe.  Neither 
he  nor  his  family  were  known  to  have  it  in  this  country.  It  must  have  been 
somewhere  if  it  ever  existed;  but  there  is  absolute  proof  that  he  returned  to  Paris  in 
beggary.  We  have  ourselves  seen  positive  written  testimony  that  he  subsisted  there 
for  several  months  on  the  bounty  of  strangers." 

Adams — no  very  friendly  witness — wrote  on  July  26, 1778,  that  Deane 
*'  was  a  diligent  servant  of  the  public  and  rendered  it  useful  service,  but 
his  living  was  expensive."  t  And  Adams,  two  months  afterwards,  while 
saying  that  Deane^s  course  in  contracting  with  foreign  officers  was 
''  very  mysterious,"  added  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Congress  to  ''  vote 
for  Mr.  Deane  settling  his  accounts  with  Congress  or  somebody  ap- 
pointed by  Congress."! 

Adams  at  that  time  had  no  other  grounds  for  distrusting  Deane.  § 

"Almost  the  whole  business  of  the  commissioners  to  France,  so  far  as  related  to  the 
receipt  and  expenditure  of  money,  had  passed  through  the  hands  of  Deane,  of  whose 
capacity  and  honesty  Franklin  entertained  a  high  opinion,  and  of  whom  John  Adams 
afterwards  said  'that  he  had  been  a  diligent  servant  of  the  public  and  had  rendered  use- 
ful service.'  Arthur  Lee,  an  unquiet,  envious,  irritable,  and  suspicious  man,  very 
anxious  to  obtain  for  himself  the  sole  management  of  the  mission,  had  quarreled  soon 
after  his  arrival  at  Paris  with  Franklin  and  Deane,  and  had  written  home  letters  full 
of  insinuations  against  both  his  colleagues.  Izard,  dissatislied,  it  would  seem,  with  not 
having  been  consulted  about  the  French  treaty,  had  written  homesimilar  letters.  Car- 
michael,  who  had  been  employed  at  Paris  as  an  agent  or  secretary  of  the  conmiissioners, 
but  who  was  now  in  America  and  was  presently  chosen  a  delegate  to  Congress  from 
Maryland,  insinuated  that  Deane  had  appropriated  the  public  money  to  his  own  use. 
He  and  Deane  were  examined  at  the  bar  of  Congress,  and  Deane  finally  made  a  written 
report.  Out  of  this  affair  sprung  two  violent  parties.  Kobert  Morris  and  other 
members  of  Congress  well  acquainted  with  mercantile  matters  took  the  side  of  Deane  ; 
but  there  was  a  powerful  party  against  him,  headed  by  Richard  Henry  Lee,  brother 
of  Arthur  Lee,  and  chairman  of  the  committee  for  foreign  affairs.  Deane  published 
in  the  Philadelphia  Gazette  an  'Address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,'  in  which 
he  commented  with  much  acrimony  on  the  conduct  of  Richard  Henry  Lee  and  his 
two  brothers,  Arthur  and  William,  claiming  also  credit  to  himself,  among  other  things, 
for  the  supplies  obtained  through  Beaumarchais.     A  reply  soon  appeared  in  the  Phila- 

*  30  North  American  Review,  Apr.  502.         t  Adams  to  Lovdl,  Sept.  26,  1778. 

*  Adams  to  Lovell.  July  26,  1778.  $  1  Hale's  Franliliu  in  France  232. 

\  36  WH  561 


§161.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE  [CHAP.  XIV. 

delphia  Packet,  written  by  Paine,  tbo  author  of  'Common  Sense,'  who,  besides 
a  gratuity  of  £500  from  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  had  been  rewarded  for  that 
pamphlet  by  the  post  of  secretary  to  the  committee  for  foreign  affairs.  Availing  him- 
self of  documents  in  his  custody,  Paine  contended  in  reply  to  Deane  that  the  arrange- 
ment with  Beaumarchais  had  in  fact  been  made  by  Arthur  Lee  in  London  ;  and  that 
those  supplies,  though  nominally  furnished  by  a  mercantile  house,  came  really  from 
the  French  court."     (3  Hildretli's  United  States,  267.) 

Hia  then  strong  anti-British        ^  1(31,  Deaoe's  freedom,  whcii  holding  the  post 

feelings.  ^  7  ^  a 

of  American  commissioner  at  Paris,  from  any 
supposed  British  ties  is  illustrated  by  the  peculiar  enmity  then  shown 
to  him  by  the  British  press,  as  well  as  by  his  peculiar  enmity,  as  just 
noticed,  to  Britain.  A  miscreant  called  "  John  the  Painter"  was  put 
on  trial  in  1776  on  the  charge  of  attempting*  to  set  fire  to  the  dock-yard 
at  Plymouth.  A  confession  was  drawn  from  him  by  a  decoy  spy,  in 
which  he  said,  among  other  things,  that  he  had  been  to  Paris  to  confer 
as  to  the  burning  with  Silas  Deane.*  And  for  this,  or  for  other  reasons, 
the  British  Government  went  so  far  as  to  demand  from  France  the 
extradition  of  Silas  Deane  '•  as  a  rebellious  British  subject."  This  was 
of  course  declined  by  France,  t  And  it  is  certain  that  Deane  was  repre- 
sented by  Stormont  to  Vergenues  as  "  an  infamous  incendiary,  whom 
France  should  expel  from  her  shores."  | 

Of  "  John  the  Painter  "  Chief-Justice  Oliver,  at  this  time  a  refugee 
in  England,  thus  writes : 

"This  John  y^  Painter  was  a  most  finished  villain  in  almost  all  crimes,  as  he  con- 
fessed himself,  and  the  Congress  and  their  adherents  could  not  have  pitched  on  a 
more  proper  person  to  have  executed  their  diabolical  purposes  than  upon  this  fellow,  but 
alas!  how  often  are  halters  misplaced!  Had  they  been  tightened  about  the  necks  of 
some  of  his  employers  neither  the  conflagration  at  Portsmouth  or  in  America  had 
committed  such  horrid  ravages  as  have  wasted  the  lives  and  habitations  of  so  many 
thousands."  (2  Hutchinson's  Diary,  143;  see  also  41  London  Chronicle,  122, 126, 134, 
143,  230,  238,  262,  for  details.)  The  '< instigators  of  John  the  Painter"  are  stated  to 
be,  beside  "the  Congress,"  "  Silas  Deane  and  other  American  patriots." 

From  Horace  Walpole  we  have  the  following: 

"Affecting  to  be  shocked  at  the  attempt  on  Bristol,  he  (Lord  Temple)  employed  one 
of  his  own  incendiaries  to  resort  to  the  prison  where  John  the  Painter  lies,  and  his 
worthy  agent,  by  worming  himself  into  that  man's  confidence,  pretends  to  have 
learnt  from  him  that  the  said  John  had  received  £300  from  Silas  Deane  for  the  pur- 
pose of  burning  not  only  Bristol,  Portsmouth,  and  Plymouth,  but  the  Bank  of  Eng- 
land, for  stone  and  gold  are  wonderfully  combustible.  The  natural  philosophers  in 
power  believe  that  Dr.  Franklin  has  invented  a  machine  of  the  size  of  a  tooth-pick 
case,  and  materials  that  would  reduce  St.  Paul  to  a  handful  of  ashes."  (Walpole  to 
Mascn,  February  27,  1777;  6  Cunningham's  Walpole,  416,  417.) 

Stormont,  in  a  letter  to  Weymouth  of  March  26,  1777,  says: 

"Franklin  affects  to  lie 2>er(?M,  but  that  infamous  incendiary  Deane,  who  pretends 
to  laugh  at  the  absurdity  of  John  the  Painter's  accusation,  and  who  seems  more  coun- 
tenanced here  since  that  accusation  than  before,  is  very  frequent  in  his  visits  to  Ver- 
sailles."    (2  Hale's  Franklin  in  France,  429.) 

*  See  20  Howell's  State  Trials,  1335.  t  Flassan,  i.  vii,  liv.  vi. 

X  Stormont  to  Weymouth,  Apr.  10,  1777. 
562 


CHAP.  XI V.J  DEANE.  [§  161. 

On  the  other  hand,  Deane's  coiinse  while  occupyiug  a  diplomatic 
position  in  Paris  exhibited  to  Britain  a  vehement  and  almost  unscru- 
pulous bitterness  far  be.yond  that  of  his  fellow  commissioners,  and  in 
singular  contrast  to  the  apologetic  and  affectionate  tones  subsequently 
adopted  by  him.  In  the  entire  correspondence  given  in  the  following 
[>ages  there  is  no  one  by  whom  denunciations  are  poured  so  fiercely  at  the 
iiiemy  as  are  found  in  the  papers  emanating  from  him,  and  by  no  one  were 
sneh  vindictive  measures  of  retalintion  recoinmended.  Privateering, 
for  instance,  he  was  willing  to  look  upon  rather  as  a  private  scourge 
than  as  a  weapon  of  public  war,  and  twice  he  recommended  inciting 
the  ''caribs*'  on  the  British  West  India  Islands  to  revolt.*  It  is  true 
that  revolt  of  this  kind  had  been  incit':'d  on  our  own  soil  by  the  enemy, 
but  we  had  denounced  it,  as  we  had  denounced  the  employment  of  In- 
dians, as  inhuman  and  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  war.  It  is  proper  to 
add  that  Congress  endeavored,  under  Franklin's  advice,  to  restrain  pri- 
vateering within  limits  which  would  make  it  a  proper  engine  of  war, 
and  refused  to  take  any  notice  of  the  propositions  for  "carib'^  revolt. 

"This  month  [March,  1777]  was  tried  and  executed  John  the  Painter,  the  incen- 
diary who  had  attempted  to  set  fire  to  Portsmouth,  and  actually  had  set  fire  to  and 
burnt  two  or  three  houses  at  Bristol  with  so  little  address  that,  though  he  acted  from 
American  enthusiasm,  the  chief  mischief  he  had  done  was  to  an  American  merchant. 
The  ministers  were  even  at  first  less  aLarmed  at  the  attempt  and  crime  than  ready  to 
turn  i  t  into  matter  of  clamor  agai  ust  the  Americans,  as  a  conspiracy  amongst  whom  they 
represented  the  act,  gisnng  out  that  the  whole  city  of  Bristol  was  in  flames.  As  it  wjis 
some  time  before  the  perpetrator  was  discovered,  they  endeavored  to  spread  a  uni- 
versal panic  and  suspicion,  and  were  indignant  when  they  were  told  that  they  had 
set  the  example  of  such  savage  and  unfair  war  by  burning  Norfolk  and  meditating  a 
conflagration  at  New  York  before  it  fell  into  their  hands.  Lord  Rochford,  their  old 
tool,  when  it  was  objected  to  him  that  the  uiinisters  had  been  the  aggressors,  called 
it  talking  treason.  It  was  much  to  their  confusion  that  the  perpetrator,  being  taken, 
was  discovered  by  a  burglary  which  he  had  committed,  and  that  he  proved  to  be  a 
single  incendiary  without  accomplices,  a  notorious  housebreaker,  a  mad  enthusiast 
and  Scotchman.  Lord  Sandwich,  whose  supreme  talents  were  the  artifices  of  a  spy, 
busied  himself  capitally  in  the  detection  of  a  plot  which  proved  no  plot  at  all; 
and  some  printed  books  being  found  in  the  culprit's  lodgings.  Lord  George  Germaine 
gave  out  that  they  were  an  account  of  the  massacre  at  Paris  and  Dr.  Price's  patuphlet. 
Dr.  Franklin  too  was  involved  in  the  charge ;  the  ministers,  to  decry  him,  pretended 
to  believe  that  he  had  invented  a  new  and  most  destructive  machine  for  burning 
towns.  Two  hundred  years  sooner  the  same  persons  would  have  accused  him  of 
magic. t 

"  But  by  far  the  most  surprising  part  of  the  story  was  that  the  conviction  of  John 
the  Painter  was  effected  by  a  very  unexpected  actor,  who,  descending  from  a  greater 
height  than  Lord  Sandwich  had  done  in  the  treachery  to  Wilkes,  stooped  to  become 
the  spy  of  a  ministry  whom  he  had  long  affected  to  treat  with  the  utmost  contempt. 
This  was  the  old  decrepid  Lord  Temple,  whose  crippled  body  was  still  agitated  by 
the  smothered  flames  of  ambition,  and  who,  exploded  by  all  parties  and  factions, 

*  See  index,  title  Deane. 

t  Franklin  had  not  arrived  in  France  at  the  time  when  the  interview  with  him  ia 
said  to  have  taken  place. 

563 


§  162.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIV. 

chose  to  purchase  contemptuous  smiles  from  the  court,  and  to  indulge  his  late  brother 
George's  rancor  to  America,  by  turning  informer  and  prompter  to  a  treacherous  spy. 
In  short;,  he  had  sent  down  a  dependent  of  his,  a  painter,  to  Winchester  jail,  to  in- 
sinuate himself  into  the  prisoner's  coufideuce ;  and  they  succeeded  as  far  as  hanging 
the  man ;  but  though  Lord  Sandwich,  Lord  Palmerston,  and  Stanley,  three  of  the 
admiralty,  went  down  to  the  trial,  and  though  no  pains  were  omitted  to  involve 
Silas  Deane  in  the  accusation,  the  criminal,  w  ho  at  first  pretended  to  have  received 
£300  from  him,  at  last  only  pleaded  having  been  promised  so  much,  and  was  soon 
dispatched,  that  he  might  not  recant  even  that.  The  zeal  of  the  Scots,  as  zeal  is  the 
blindest  of  all  agents,  endeavored  to  alarm  France,  as  if  Silas  Deane  had  such  a  pas- 
sion for  burning  magazines  that  Brest  would  not  be  safe  if  he  was  suffered  to  remain 
in  France ;  it  was  so  likely  that  he  would  pay  his  court  at  Versailles  by  so  capital  an 
injury!"     (2  Walpole's  Journal  of  Reign  of  George  III,  100.) 

Hard  treatment  by  Congress.        ^  IQ2.   Whcu  Deane    reached    Pliiladelpliia, 

after  his  recall,  he  expected  to  be  received  with 
an  ovation.  He  really  had  done  much.  He  had  from  the  first  received 
friendly  countenance  from  the  French  court,  and  had  forwarded  to 
America  largesuEjlli^^  which,  however  obtained,  were  of  immense  value 
to  the  rejrolutipnary  caiiseT^p^elTarrCgn^ri^ 

in  negotiating^  treaty  of  commerce  anda  treatynDfaTTmice  with  France, 
eac^^Srv^hich^XsTsiugularly  favorable  in  itsjerms.    He  had  with  him 
strong  letters  of  api^rovaTfi^iiQ'Yergeili^^       from  Franklin,  and  with 
witii  them  a  miniature  of  Louis  XVI  set  in  diamonds.    In  the  very  ship 
that  brought  him  over  came  Gerard,  the  new  French  minister,  the  two 
travelers  uniting,  as  it  would  seem,  in  predicting  an  era  of  success  to 
the  republic.     Instead,  however,  of  the  buoyant  welcome  he  had  ex- 
pected, he  found  but  a  cold  reception,  growing  each  day  colder.     For 
this  the  reasons  were  several.     He  was  condemned  for  his  action  in 
sending  over,   on   promises  made   without  authority,   scores,   it  was 
said,  of  French  officers,  some  incompetent,  and  almost  all  both  iuij)or- 
tunate  and  insatiable.     Those  who  were  devoted  to  Washington,  and 
even  those  who  were  not,  could  not  understand  how  Deane  should  have 
had  his  head  so  turned  as  to  suggest  a  foreign  prince  to  take  Washing- 
ton's place  at  the  head  of  the  armies  of  the  United  State.     The  Lees 
and  Samuel  Adams  looked  upon  him  as  one  who  had  ruthlessly  quar- 
reled with  Arthur  Lee,  and  who,  if  he  returned,  would  oust  William 
Lee  from  the  lucrative  post  of  commercial  agent  in  Paris.     Deane  also 
had  strong  opposition  on  personal  grounds  from  at  least  two,  if  we 
judge  from  his  own  account,  of  his  Connecticut  colleagues;  and  his 
difficulties  with  Izard  alienated  from  him  the  South  Carolina  delegation. 
He  had  also  but  little  tact  in  conciliating  opponents  or  in  making 
friends ;  and  a  publication  by  him  in  the  Pennsylvania  Packet,  exposing 
to  the  public  eye  the  dissensions  in  the  legation  in  Paris,  justly  exposed 
him  to  censure  on  the  ground  that,  however  true,  it  was  a  breach  of 
confidence.     How  it  was  that  for  weary  months  he  appealed  to  Con- 
gress to  authorize  a  settlement  of  his  accounts,  but  appealed  in  vain, 
564 


CHAP.  XIV. ]  DEANE.  [§  163. 

will  be  seen  by  examining'  the  coM('s[)()n(ienee  in  tbe  following  volumes.* 
Of  tbe  result  IliUlreth  thus  justly  speaks: 

"Deane  was  finally  discharged  from  liis  loug  and  irksome  attendance  on  Congress 
with  a  paltry  nllowance  for  his  time,  which  he  refused  to  accept,  and  he  presently 
returned  to  Europe  for  the  settlement  of  his  accounts,  under  which  lie  claimed  a  largo 
i)alanco  against  the  United  States,  Though  he  had  entered  Congress  with  the  repu- 
tation of  being  a  rich  man,  this  claim  seemed  now  to  constitiite  his  sole  pecuniary 
means.  Congress  neglected  to  appoint  anybody  to  act  for  them  in  the  settlement  of 
the  accounts  of  tlieir  agents  abroad;  and  Deane,  thus  deprived  of  all  resources,  was 
reduced  to  great  pecuniary  distress.  No  proof  appears  that  he  had  been  dishonest,  or 
had  employed  the  public  mone}'^  in  specuhitions  of  his  own,  as  his  enemies  alleged, 
but  ho  had  occupied  the  unfortunate  position  of  having  large  sums  of  public  money 
pass  through  his  hands  before  any  proper  system  of  vouchers  and  accountability  had 
been  established,  and  he  fell  before  the  same  spirit  of  malignant  accusation  which 
presently  assaulted  Wadsworth,  Greene,  Morris,  and  even  Franklin  himself,  but 
which  they  had  better  means  for  warding  off."     (3  Hildreth's  United  States,  269.) 

A  manuscript  copy  of  Silas  Deque's  address,  laid  before  Congress  on  December  21, 
1778,  is  in  No.  LII  of  the  Spark's  Collection  at  Harvard  College.  This  manuscipt  dif- 
fers in  several  respects  from  the  printed  text  as  given  in  the  papers  in  relation  to  the 
case  of  Silas  Deane  as  printed  in  Philadelphia  in  1855. 

"Intercepted  letters."  §  1G3.  In  the  fall  of  1781  there  appeared  in  Riving- 
ton's  Royal  Gazette,  published  in  New  York,  a 
series  of  letters  claimed  to  have  been  written  by  Deane  about  the  same 
time,  giving",  with  nnuth  skill,  reasons  why  the  cause  of  independence 
should  be  abandoned  and  the  conciliatory  propositions  of  Britain  ac- 
cepted. Had  these  letters  been  written  at  different  times,  to  be  for- 
warded by  different  opportunities  to  the  parties  to  whom  they  were 
addressed,  it  is  not  likely,  skillful  as  Deane  was  in  getting  his  letters 
across  the  water,  that  they  would  have  been  *' intercepted''  in  a  bunch. 
They  were  however  so  "intercepted,''  and  they  certainly,  as  they  ap- 
pear in  Rivington's  Gazette,  have  very  niu(^h  the  appearance  of  having 
been  forwarded  to  that  paper  for  the  purpose  of  better  circulation. 
Complete  copies  of  them  as  so  issued  are  rare.  To  Deane's  address 
however  of  August,  1784,  to  "the  United  States  of  North  America," 
])ublished  l)y  Dobrett,  London,  he  adds  a  letter  to  Robert  Morris,  of 
June  10,  1781,  which  he  says  "contains  the  substance  of  what  in  1781 
I  wrote  to  my  friends  and  correspondents  in  America  in  those  letters 
which  were  intercepted  and  published  in  New  York."  He  adds  that 
where  the  publication  of  Rivington  "  differs  from  the  original  I  have 
noted  and  corrected  it  in  this  letter,  and  therefore  the  present  may  be 
relied  on  as  authentic." 

In  the  letter  thus  selected,  as  giving  the  substance  of  the  intercepted 
letters  as  a  whole,  Deane  takes  the  following  position  :  (1)  The  decla- 
ration of  independence  was  a  mistake,  as  there  were  no  real  grievances 
to  redress ;  (2)  the  French  alliance  is  a  clelusion  ;  (3)  the  best  thing  for 
the  Uhited^iateHto  do  is  to  submit,  ^t  will  be  remembered  that  Deane 


SeeTndex,  title  Deauo. 

565 


§  163.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [cHAP.  XIV. 

cliose  the  gloomiest  period  of  the  war  to  utter  sentiments  which,  in  di- 
rect conflict  as  they  were  with  his  former  views  both  as  to  independence 
and  as  to  the  temper  to  be  shown  to  Britain,  show  on  their  face  that  the 
letters  containing  them  were  concocted  to  be  put  into  circulation  in  such 
a  way  as  best  to  further  the  ministerial  schemes.  It  is  in  recognition  of 
this  i)urpose  that  George  IIPs  criticism,  hereafter  introduced^  was 
made,  and  it  was  to  give  them  currency  that  the  *'  intercepting"  scheme 
was  contrived.  Had  the  letters  been  delivered,  as  addressed,  to  Kobert 
Morris  and  the  other  i^atriots  whom  Deane  selected  as  his  nominal  cor- 
respondents, there  would  have  been  no  publication.  It  was  only  through 
loyalist  papers  that  they  could  be  put  into  print.  We  must  takeinto  con- 
sideration not  merely  the  tone  of  the  letters,  but  the  mode  in  which  they 
were  put  into  circulation,  in  order  to  understand  the  vehemence  with 
which  they  were  denounced  by  the  legislature  and  governor  of  Connect- 
icut, where  Deane  was  nominally  domiciled,  as  well  as  by  the  patriot 
press  at  large. 

In  a  pamphlet  published  iu  Hartford  in  1784,  and  dated  in  London  on 
October  12,  1783,  Deane,  after  admitting  and  defending  his  ''inter- 
cepted letters,"  states : 

"I  can  -with  tbe  greatest  truth  and  sincerity  declare  that  I  have  not  so  much  as 
seen  any  of  the  ministers  since  my  arrival  in  this  country,  nor  have  I  ever  had  the 
least  connection  or  correspondence  with  any,  either  of  the  present  or  late  ministers 
of  this  country," 

But  this  can  not  be  reconciled  with  George  IIPs  statements,  here- 
after given,  or  with  the  conclusions  of  Jay  and  of  Franklin  as  to  Deane's 
apostacy. 

In  respect  to  the'  "intercepted  letters"  we  have  the  following  corre- 
spondence : 

"  I  inclose  you  a  paper  containing  tw^  of  the  many  letters  lately  published  in  New 
York  with  the  subscription  of  Mr.  Dele's  name.  The  genuineness  of  some  of  them, 
and  particularly  that  'to  Mr.  Moi'^,  is  generally  doubted.  There  are  some  vrho 
think  the  whole/rf  th^m  spurious/^  However  this  may  be,  there  is,  through  another 
chacnel,  indubitable  proof  thaf  no  injustice  is  ^done  in  ascribing  to  him  the  senti- 
ments advanced  in  these  letters.  Either  from  pique,  interested  projects  of  trade,  or 
a  traitorous  correspondence  wnth  the  enemy,  he  has  certainly  apostatized  from  his 
first  principles."    (Madison  to  Jefferson,  Noverbber  18,  1781 ;  I  Madison  Papers,  103.) 

*'0n  whichever  side  Mr.  Deane's  letters  are  viewed  they  present  mysteries.  Whether 
they  be  supposed  genuine  or  spurious,  or  a  mixture  of  both,  difficulties  which  can  not 
well  be  answered  may  be  started.  There  are  however  passages  in  some  of  them  which 
can  scarcely  be  imputed  to  any  other  hand.  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  rely  on  these 
publications  for  the  real  character  of  the  man.  There  is  evidence  of  his  obliquity 
wliich  has  for  a  considerable  time  been  conclusive."  (Madison,  in  Congress,  to  Pen- 
dleton, December  11,  1781 ;  1  Madison's  Writings,  57.) 

But  as  time  gave  fuller  opportunity  of  observation,  there  was  no 
doubt  as  to  the  authenticity  of  these  letters.  Hutchinson  spoke  of  the 
encouragement  they  gave  refugees  in  England.*  Franklin  declared 
with  pain  that  they  harmonized  with  what  he  heard  was  the  then  tone 

*  2  Hutchinson's  Diary,  246. 


CHAP.  XIV.]  DEANE.  [§  163. 

iof  Deane's  conversation,  and  lie  said  that  Deane  at  that  time  even  jus- 
tified tlie  course  of  Arnohl.*  In  11S3  Deane's  associates  in  Enghnid, 
according  to  Adams,  were  Arnold,  Paul  Wentworth,  and  Skeane.t  And 
one  of  these  letters,  that  to  Governor  Trumbull  of  October  21,  1781 
(if  this  may  be  called  '^  intercepted."  of  which  there  is  doubt,  as  a  dupli- 
cate of  it  at  least  appears  to  have  been  delivered),  had  its  authenticity 
verified  and  acknowledged  not  only  by  Trumbull,  but  by  the  legislature 
of  Connecticut,  to  whom  he  communicated  it.  This  letter  (written  be- 
fore Deaiie  heard  of  Cornwallis'  surrender,  but  received  after  that 
decisive  event)  is  contained,  with  Trumbull's  reply,  in  volume  5G  of  the 
Letters  to  Washington  deposited  in  the  Department  of  State.  Deane's 
letter  is  written  with  much  art,  sui)posing  the  facts  he  states  as  to  the 
failure  of  the  revolutionary  campaign  to  be  true,  and  supposing  his  ob 
ject  to  be  to  induce  an  abandonment  of  the  French  alliance  and  a  return 
to  the  British  sway.  But  he  so  grossly  overstates  his  case  as  to  deprive 
his  conclusions,  even  at  the  time  he  wrote,  of  any  force.  He  speaks  of 
the  campaign  so  far,  on  the  part  of  France  and  Spain,  as  being  ridicu- 
lously indecisive.  He  declares  that  for  ns  to  continue  the  war  would 
subject  us  to  France,  notwithstanding  his  assumption  that  France  is  at 
this  time  worsted.  With  some  pertinency  he  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  "onr  ministers  and  agents  in  Europe  cost  ns  at  this  time  more 
than  £20,000  sterling  annually,  though  we  have  only  one  received  and 
acknowledged  as  such."  He  then  untruly  announces  "a  secret  treaty 
between  Russia  and  England,"  and  declares  that  England  will  have 
it  in  her  power  to  make  a  general  peace,  excluding  the  United  States; 
and,  assuming  this,  he  argues  that  it  is  essential  to  the  United  States 
to  obtain  from  England  indulgent  terms  while  they  may  still  be  had. 
The  st^de  is  much  superior  in  its  literary  structure  to  that  which  marks 
those  letters  which  came  from  Deane  when  he  was  corresponding  with 
Congress  as  its  acknowledged  agent;  and  this  maybe  explained  by  the 
supposition  that  in  preparing  this  and  the  "intercepted"  letters  of  Oc- 
tober, 1781,  he  had  the  aid  of  British  officials.  That  this  is  so  we 
can  infer  from  the  letters  of  George  HE,  to  be  presently  quoted.  Trum- 
bull's answer  is  very  strong.  It  begins  by  saying  that  "at  the  time 
when  you  wrote  the  decisive  event  of  the  last  campaign  in  this  country 
was  not  known  to  you;  you  were  unacquainted  with  the  noble  part 
which  France  acted  on  that  occasion,  and  you  could  not  foresee  that 
this  event  would  reduce  the  British  Parliament  to  confess  themselves 
unable  to  conduct  a  future  offensive  war  in  this  country;  you  could  not 
foresee  that  the  'trifling  and  indecisive'  campaign  in  Europe  was  to  be 
soon  followed  by  the  most  important  successes  in  other  quarters  of  the 
world;  that  St.  Eustatia,  St.  Martin,  St.  Kitt's,  Montserrat,  Nevis,  were 
destined  to  crown  the  glories  of  Yorktown."  After  vindicating  the 
generosity  of  France  in  her  arrangements  with  the  United  States,  and 


Franklin  to  Livingston,  Mar.  4,  17.S2.       t  Adams  to  Livingston,  Aug.  2,  1783. 

567 


§164]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIV. 

ypeakii)^'  of  the  wiuit  of  .generosity  of  Biitaiu,  be  says:  "  I  will  soouer 
consent  to  load  myself,  my  eoiistitiieuts,  and  my  posterity  with  a  debt 
equal  to  the  whole  property  of  tlie  country  than  to  consent  to  a  meas- 
ure so  detestably  infamous"  as  the  submission  proposed  by  Deane. 
This  reply  of  Trumbull  was,  as  we  learn  by  a  letter  of  Trumbull  to 
Livingston  (given  infra,  under  date  of  May  23,  1782),  was  unanimously 
approved  by  the  legislature  of  Connecticut. 

The  fact  tliat  these  letters  were  prepared  in  a  hunch  goes  some  way  to  prove  that 
they  formed  part  of  a  system  of  demonstration  got  up  in  such  a  way  as  to  produce 
the  greatest  political  effect.  Of  those  of  them  which  I  have  been  able  to  trace  the 
dates  are  as  follows: 

Deane  to  James  Wilson,  Paris,  May  10,  1781 ;  Deane  to  Root,  Paris,  May  20,  1781 ; 
Deane  to  Tallmado-e,  May  20,  1781;  Deane  to  Duer,  Paris,  June  14,  1781;  Deane  to 
Morris,  Paris,  June  10,  1781;  Deaim  to  Wadsworth,  Paris,  June  13,  1781 ;  Deane  to 
Parsons,  Paris,  May  14,  1781 ;  Deane  to  Thompson,  Paris,  June  1,  1781  ;  Deane  to 
Somers  Deane,  May  16,  1781. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  George  III  had  his  doubts  whether  the  scheme  had  not  been 
overdone.  Cobbett  wrote  a  pamphlet  review  of  these  letters,  which  gave  him  great 
delight.^ 

Deane's  letter  dated  Paris,  May  15,  1781,  appears  in  tne  London  Morning  Post  of 
January  28,  1782,  as  lately  intercepted  ;  and  so  of  his  other  intercepted  letters. 

As  discrediting  the  claim  that  the  letters  were  sent  hona  fide  to  American  corre- 
spondents and  intercepted  on  the  road,  we  have  also  to  observe : 

(1)  None  of  them  are  in  cipher,  though  to  most  of  the  parties  addressed  Deane  had 
been  in  the  habit  of  using  ciphers. 

(2)  The  vessel  or  vessels  from  which  ihey  were  taken  were  not  reported,  as  was 
usually  the  case  when  papers  of  interest  were  seized,  the  news  of  the  capture  of  the 
vessel  coming  in  with  the  capturing  vessel. 

Views  of  George  III.  §  1G4.  Whatever  we  may  think  of  Deane's  early 
services  in  the  revolutionary  cause,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  he  left  Philadelphia  thoroughly  embittered  by  the  unjust  and  in- 
sulting course  of  Congress  towards  him,  and  that,  on  his  return  to 
Europe,  he  soon  fell  under  British  control  and  accepted  British  pay. 
As  to  this  the  following  extracts  from  letters  of  George  III  to  Lord 
North  leave  no  doubt: 

"I  return  the  communications  from  Mr.  Wentworth  and  Mr.  Thornton  (Arthur 
Lee's  secretary).  The  return  of  Deane  is  a  very  fortunate  event,  as  it  gives  full  time  to 
the  news  transmitted  in  the  Androiwda  to  take  effect,  and  I  shoukl  naturallj'^  conclude 
may  bring  America  to  a  state  of  tranquillity.*'  (George  III  to  Lord  North,  March  9, 
1778,  2  Correspondence,  etc.,  145.) 

"Lord  North:  On  returning  last  night  from  the  oratorio  I  received  your  box.  I 
think  it  perfectly  right  that  Mr.  Deane  should  so  far  be  trusted  as  to  have  £3,000  in 
goods  for  America.  The  giving  him  particular  instructions  wouhl  be  liable  to  much 
hazard,  but  his  bringing  any  of  the  provinces  to  offer  to  return  to  their  allegiance  on 
the  former  foot  would  be  much  better  than  by  joint  application  through  the  Con- 
gress; for  if  by  the  breaking  off  of  some  the  rest  are  obliged  to  yield,  n<.  further  con- 
cert, or  perhaps  amity,  can  subsist  between  them,  wbich  would  not  be  the  case  in 
the  other  mode,  and  the  fire  might  only  be  smothered,  to  break  out  again  on  the  first 
occasion."     (George  III  to  Lord  North,  March  3,  1781,  2  Correspondence,  363.) 

*SeeDuane,  Polit.  Pamphlets,  Cong.  Library. 
568 


CHAP.  XIV, ]  DEANE.  [§  165. 

Mr.  DoDiie  (the  editor)  adds  the  following  note: 

"The  history  of  Silas  De^ue  is  wrapt  in  soiiit' mystery.  He  and  General  Arnold 
were  early  friends,  and  both  deserted  the  cause  which  they  had  once  so  efficiently 
supported.  Deane  appears  to  liavo  been  the  victim  of  intrigue,  and  to  have  incurred 
the  enmity  of  Arthur  Lee,  Izard,  and  other  Americans,  Franklin  in  1782  defended 
Deane  from  a  charge  of  fraud.  The  story  of  these  intrigues  is  related  by  Mr.  Partou,  in 
his  Life  of  Franklin,  volume  ii,  chapter  ix.  From  this  letter  it  is  evident  that  Deaue 
was  now  in  the  service  of  the  English  ministry.  He  joined  Arnold  in  England  and 
renewed  their  friendship.  Upon  hearing  of  their  reunion  John  Jay,  who  like 
Franklin,  had  stood  by  Deane  in  all  his  misfortunes,  tore  his  portrait  into  shreds  and 
threw  them  into  the  fire.  Some  time  after,  when  Deane  called  upon  Jay  in  London, 
the  indignant  American  wrote  to  reject  his  proffered  civilities,  saying  that  'every 
American  who  gives  his  hand  to  Be.nedict  Arnold,  in  my  opinion,  pollutes  it.' 

"  '  For  a  few  mouths,' says  Mr.  Farton,  (lb.,  'Mi2) '  Deane  basked  in  the  smiles  of  tory, 
and,  it  is  said,  of  royal  favor;  which  is  not  unlikely,  for  George  III  had  Arnold  con- 
tinually at  his  side,  and  bestowed  upon  him  the  most  conspicuous  marks  of  favor. 
But  after  the  peace  Deane  was  totally  neglected.  He  died  at  a  small  country  town 
a  few  years  later  in  extreme  poverty.' 

*'Yet  he  appears  to  have  been  'as  much  sinned  against  as  sinning,' for  in  1835, 
forty-five  years  after  his  death,  Congress  paid  to  his  heirs  a  considerable  part  of  the 
sum  due  to  them.  The  sum  awarded  was  $38,000.  Among  Deane's  papers  at  Hart 
ford  was  found  a  complete  statement  of  his  case  by  himself,  and  this,  backed  by 
Franklin's  testimony  to  his  integrity,  weighed  with  Congress  in  repairing  the  wrong 
done  to  him." 

''I  have  received  Lord  North's  boxes  containing  the  intercepted  letters  from  Mr. 
Deane  for  America.  I  have  only  been  able  to  read  two  of  [theml,  on  which  I  form 
the  same  opinion  of  too  much  appearance  of  heinq  concerted  with  this  country,  and  there- 
fore not  likely  tohave  the  effect  as  if  they  bore  anollier  aspect.  I  return  them,  and  hope 
when  the  copies  have  been  taken  to  be  able  to  read  them  at  my  leisure,  for  it  is 
impossible  in  a  hurry  to  form  any  solid  opinion  concerning  them.  The  extract  from 
Franklin  is  very  material ;  should  France  not  supply  America  amply,  I  think  it  has  the 
appearance  that  this  long  contest  will  end,  as  it  ought,  by  the  Colonies  returning  to 
the  mother  country  ;  and  I  confess  T  will  never  put  my  hand  to  any  other  conclusion 
of  this  business."  (George  III  to  Lord  North,  July  19,  1781,  2  Correspondence,  etc. ,380.) 

"The  letter  Lord  North  has  wrote  to  Sir  Henry  Clinton  on  the  subject  of  the  inter- 
cepted letters  from  Mr.  Deane  he  is  transmitting  to  him,  is  very  proper,  and  is  the 
most  likely  means  of  rendering  them  of  some  utility.  I  owne  I  think  them  too  strong  in 
our  favour  to  bear  the  appearance  of  his  spontaneous  opinions,  but  that,  if  supposed 
to  be  authentic,  they  will  see  they  have  by  concert  fell  into  our  hands.  The  means 
Mr.  Deane  should  have  taken  as  most  conducive  of  the  object  he  seems  now  to  favour 
would  have  been  first  to  have  shown  that  the  hands  of  France  are  too  full  to  be  able 
to  give  any  solid  assistance  to  America,  and  to  have  pointed  out  the  ruin  that  must 
attend  a  further  continuance  of  the  war  ;  and  after  having  given  time  for  these  opin- 
ions to  be  digested,  then  have  proposed  the  giving  up  all  ideas  of  indepeudeucy,  and 
have  shown  that  the  country  is  not  in  a  state  to  subsist  without  the  assistance  of 
some  foreign  power,  and  that  consequently  so  mild  a  government  as  the  British  one 
is  the  most  favorable  that  America  can  depend  upon."  (George  III  to  Lord  North, 
August  7,  1781,  id,  381.) 

Position  iu  1784-89.  ^  ]  (j5.  When  Deane  returned  to  Paris  he  not  only 

avoided  Franklin  and  his  old  patriotic  associates, 
but  he  expressed  himself  with  so  much  bitterness  towards  Congress,* 
and  with  such  disapproval  of  the  course  the  war  was  taking,  that  he  was 


According  to  Vergennes  he  was  '*  furieux  contra  sa  Patrie." 

5G9 


§  165.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIV. 

avoided  by  old  acquaintances  in  return.  That  Arthur  Lee's  stories  about 
his  wealth  were  erroneous,  appears  from  the  following  manuscript 
memorandum  by  Sparks,  which  is  in  the  Harvard  collection: 

''Among  the  papers  iu  the  French  offices  I  saw  an  original  letter  from  Beaumarchaia 
to  Connt  Vergennes,  stating  that  Deane  was  iu  Paris,  destitute  of  the  means  of  sub- 
sistence.    Upon  this  Vergennes  advanced  Deane  privately  12,000  livres. 

'*  Towards  the  end  of  the  year  he  was  in  London,  employed  in  literary  and  political 
work,  if  not  by  the  ministry,  at  least  by  opponents  of  the  American  cause.  Thus 
Luzerne,  in  a  letter  of  October  i).  1783,  to  Vergennes,  states  that  Sheffield's  pamphlet 
on  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  was  prepared  by  Deane."  (Sparks  Manuscripts, 
Harvard  College,  vol.  32.) 

Next  comes  the  following  painful  correspondence  between  Deane  and 

Jay: 

Deane  to  Jay. 

''London,  Jan.  2l8t,  1784.* 
"  Sir  :  I  called  at  your  lodgings  in  November  last,  but  your  serA^aut  told  me  you 
was  not  within,  and  that  you  intended  to  set  out  for  Bath  in  a  day  or  two,  on  which, 
being  exceedingly  desirous  of  an  interview  with  you,  I  sent  you  a  letter  requesting 
that  favor;  but  going  out  of  town  myself  a  few  days  after,  and  having  received  no 
answer,  I  am  at  a  loss  what  to  conclude  on — whether  my  letter  might  have  failed,  or 
that  you  do  not  incline  to  favour  me  with  an  interview,  and  hence  I  am  induced  to 
trouble  you  with  this,  and  to  request  that  you  will  simply  inform  me  by  a  line  if  you 
received  my  letter  of  November,  and  if  an  interview  will  be  agreeable  or  not.  I  wish 
to  obviate  and  remove  any  late  prejudices  which  you  may  have  entertained  against 
me  from  the  most  gross  misrepresentations  of  my  conduct  since  my  arrival  in  Eng- 
land ;  and  I  submit  to  you  the  propriety  of  giving  me  an  opportunity  for  doing  this, 

and  am,  with  great  respect,  sir,  etc., 

"  Silas  Deane." 


Jay  to  Deane. 

"Chaillot,  near  Paris,  23d  February,  1784. t 
"Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  21st  of  January  was  delivered  to  me  this  morning.  It  is 
painful  to  say  disagreeable  things  to  any  person,  and  esDccially  to  those  with  whom 
one  has  lived  in  habits  of  friendship  ;  but  candor  on  this  subject  forbids  reserve. 
You  was  of  the  number  of  those  who  possessed  my  esteem,  and  to  whom  I  was 
attached.  To  me  personally  you  have  never  given  offense;  but,  on  the  contrary,  I 
am  persuaded  you  sincerely  wished  me  well,  and  was  disposed  to  do  me  good  offices. 
"The  card  you  left  for  me  at  Mr.  Bingham's,  and  also  the  letter  you  mention,  were 
delivered  to  me;  and  I  can  not  express  the  regret  I  experienced  from  the  ciuel  neces- 
sity I  thought  myself  under  of  passing  them  over  in  silence ;  but  I  love  my  country 
and  my  honour  better  than  my  friends,  and  even  my  family,  and  am  ready  to  part 
with  them  all  whenever  it  would  be  improper  to  retain  them.  You  are  either  ex- 
ceedingly injured  or  you  are  no  friend  to  America;  and  while  doubts  remain  on  that 
point,  all  connexion  between  us  must  be  suspended.  I  wished  to  hear  what  you 
might  have  to  say  on  that  head,  and  should  have  named  a  time  and  place  for  an 
interview  had  not  an  insurmountable  obstacle  intervened  to  prevent  it.  I  was  told  by 
more  than  one,  on  whose  information  I  thought  I  could  rely,  that  you  received  visits 
from,  and  was  on  terms  of  familiarity  with.  General  Arnold.  Every  American  who 
gives  his  hand  to  that  man,  in  my  opinion,  pollutes  it. 

"  I  think  it  my  duty  to  deal  thus  candidly  with  you,  and  I  assure  you,  with  equal 
sincerity,  that  it  would  give  me  cordial  satisfaction  to  find  you  able  to  acquit  your- 

*  2  Jay's  Life,  143.  1 2  Jay's  Life,  144. 

670 


CHAP.  XIV.]  DEANE.  [§  165. 

self  iu  the  judgraeut  of  the  dispassioiiate  and  impartial.     If  it  is  iu  your  power  to 

do  it,  I  think  you  do  yourself  injustice  by  not  undertaking  that  necessary  task. 

"That  yoii  may  perform  it  successfully,  whenever  you  undertake  it,  is  the  sincere 

wisli  and  desire  of,  sir,  etc., 

"John  Jay." 

That  S.  Deane  gave  the  British  ministry,  iu  October,  1787,  suggestions  hostile  to 
America  appears  from  a  letter  of  Lord  Dorchester  to  the  British  secretary  of  state, 
dated  October  24,  17H7.     (2  Bancroft's  History  of  the  Constitution,  448.) 

Of  tbis  uiibappy  life  at  a  later  period  we  have  the  following  glimpse: 

**  About  three  weeks  ago  a  person  called  on  me  and  informed  me  that  Silas  Deane 
had  taken  him  in  for  a  sum  of  120  guineas;  and  that,  being  unable  to  obtain  any 
other  satisfaction,  ho  had  laid  hands  on  his  account  book  and  letter  book,  and  had 
brought  them  otf  to  Paris,  to  offer  them  first  to  the  United  States  if  they  would  repay 
him  his  money;  if  nor,  he  would  return  to  London  and  offer  them  to  the  British  min- 
ister. I  desired  him  to  leave  them  with  mo  four  and  twenty  hours,  that  I  might  judge 
whether  they  Avere  worth  our  notice.  He  did  so.  They  were  two  volumes.  One  con- 
tained all  his  accounts  with  the  United  States,  from  his  first  coming  to  Europe  to 
January  10,  1781,  Presuming  that  the  treasury  board  was  in  possession  of  this  ac- 
count till  his  arrival  iu  Philadelphia,  August,  1778,  and  that  he  had  never  given  in  the 
subsequent  part,  I  had  that  subsequent  ]3art  copied  from  the  book,  and  now  inclose 
it,  as  it  may  on  some  occasion  or  other  perhaps  be  useful  in  the  treasury  office. 
The  other  volume  contained  all  his  correspondence  from  March  29  to  August  23,  1777. 
I  had  a  list  of  the  letters  taken  by  their  dates  and  addresses,  w^hich  will  enable  you 
to  form  a  general  idea  of  the  collection  on  the  j)crusal  of  many  of  them.  I  thought 
it  desirable  that  they  should  not  come  to  the  hands  of  the  British  minister  ;  and  from 
an  expression  dropped  by  the  possessor  of  them  I  believe  he  would  have  fallen  fifty 
or  sixty  guineas.  I  did  not  think  them  important  enough,  however,  to  justify  my 
purchasing  them  without  authority,  though  with  authority  I  should  have  done  it. 
Indeed  I  would  have  given  that  sum  to  cut  out  a  single  sentence,  which  contained 
evidence  of  a  fact  not  proper  to  be  committed  to  the  hands  of  enemies.  I  told  hinj 
I  would  state  the  proposition  to  you  and  await  orders.  I  gave  him  back  the  books, 
and  he  returned  to  London  without  making  any  promise  that  he  would  await  the 
event  of  the  orders  you  might  think  proper  to  give."  (Jefferson  to  Jay,  August  3, 
1788;  3  Dip.  Corr.  Rev.,  1783-1789,  428.) 

"  On  the  receipt  of  your  letter  advising  me  to  purchase  the  two  volumes  of  Deane's 
letters  and  accounts,  I  wrote  to  theiierson  who  had  them,  and,  after  some  offers  and 
refusals,  he  let  me  have  them  for  25  louis,  instead  of  120  louis  asked  at  first.  He  told 
me  that  Deane  had  still  six  or  eight  volumes  more,  and  that  when  he  sbould  return 
to  London  he  would  try  to  get  them  iu  order  to  make  himself  whole  of  the  money  he 
lent  Deane.  As  I  kuew  he  would  endeavor  to  make  us  pay  dear  for  them,  and  it 
appeared  to  be  your  oi)inion  and  that  of  the  members  you  had  consulted  that  it  was 
an  object  worthy  attention,  I  wrote  immediately  to  a  friend  in  London  to  endeavor 
to  purchase  them  from  Deane  himself,  whose  distresses  and  crapulous  habits  will 
probably  render  him  more  easy  to  deal  with.  I  authorized  him  to  go  as  high  as  50 
guineas;  I  have  as  yet  no  answer  from  him."  (Jefferson  to  Jay,  March  12,  1789;  4 
id.,  07.) 

"  I  have  received  an  answer  from  London  on  the  subject  of  the  other  volumes  of 
Deane's  letters  and  accounts,  suggested  to  be  still  in  his  possession.  This  information 
renders  it  certain  that  none  such  are  iu  his  possession,  aiul  probably  that  no  others 
exist  but  the  two  which  I  have  purchased."  (Jefferson  to  Jay,  March  15,  1789;  id., 
77.)* 


*  The  account  and  letters  above  referred  to  by  Jefferson  in  his  note  of  March  12, 
1789,  can  not  be  found  iu  the  Department  of  State,  though  a  diligent  search  has 
been  made  for  them. 

571 


§  166.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIV. 

Explanation  of  his  course.        ^  166.  The  "  mysteij,"  as  it  is   called,  of  Silas 

Deane  may  be  solved  when  we  remember  that  he 
was  distinguished  in  that  part  of  his  public  life  as  to  which  there  is  no  dis- 
pute much  more  for  zeal  than  for  either  political  sagacity  or  political 
scrupulousness.  He  threw  himself  into  Beaumarchais'arms  when  he  had 
no  definite  assurance  on  what  authority  Beaumarchais  acted.  Theex- 
travgant  salaries  and  military  rank  he  engaged  to  confer  on  French  offi- 
cers as  inducements  to  come  to  Philadelphia  show  that  he  either  duped 
them  or  was  duped  by  his  own  determination  to  produce  immediate 
effects  regardless  of  consequences.  The  same  may  be  said  of  his  sug- 
gestions of  unjustifiable  and  cruel  retaliation  in  war,  and  in  his  recom- 
mending Congress  to  confer  the  direction  of  the  American  armies  on 
Broglie;  a  recommendation  which,  if  not  attributable  to  political  igno- 
rance which  is  almost  inconceivable,  can  only  be  regarded  as  an  attempt 
on  his  part  either  to  impose  on  the  Broglie  faction,  or  to  sacrifice  his 
country  to  promote  that  faction's  interests.  We  can  conceive  of  the 
effect  on  such  a  character  of  the  neglect  he  was  subjected  to  on  his 
return  to  Philadelphia.  He  found  himself  not  merely  a  suppliant,  but 
a  suppliant  repelled  and  shunned  before  the  very  Congress  in  which  he 
had  taken  at  least  a  respectable  part.  He  was  x^oor ;  and  it  seems  now 
plain  that  the  charges  against  him  of  making  monej^  out  of  his  post  were 
baseless.*  He  was  naturally  incensed  at  such  treatment,  and  that  want 
of  political  scrupulousness  which  lie  had  exhibited  when  emi3loyed  for  the 
United  States  he  exhibited  when  dismissed  from  his  employment 
First  came  letters  from  him,  which  were  intercepted  and  published, 
saying  that  the  mismanagement  of  Congress  was  bringing  the  country  to 
ruin.  These  letters  drovehim  finally  out  of  the  society  of  the  patriots  with 
whom  he  had  previously  associated,  and  made  him  an  exile  when  inde- 
pendence was  secured  by  peace.  In  his  poverty  and  desolation  he  re- 
turned to  England,  and  there  entered  into  the  service  of  the  British 
crown  against  the  cause  of  which  lie  had  been  a  conspicuous  adherent. 
In  so  doing  he  w^as  guilty  of  a  great  crime,  yet  a  crime  no  greater  than 
that  committed  by  some  of  the  whig  leaders  in  the  English  revolution  of 
1688,  who,  when  piqued  by  William's  neglect,  entered  into  traitorous 
correspondence  with  the  court  of  St.  Germain. 

Sabine,  in  his  work  on  the  Lo^'alists  (vol.  1,  p.  262),  closes  his  sketch  of  Deane  as 
follows : 

"  A  man  driven  to  despair  is  to  be  judged  mercifully.  He  died  on  board  the  Boston 
Paclcet,  in  the  Downs,  in  1789,  in  his  lifty-third  year,  after  four  hours'  illness.  His 
wife  was  the  rich  Widow  Webb." 

Elkanah  Watson,  who  saw  Deane  at  Ghent  in  1781,  speaks  of  hira  as  "  a  voluntary 
exile,  misanthropic  in  his  feelings^  intent  on  getting  money,  and  deadly  hostile  to 
his  native  land.  His  language,''  continues  Watson,  "  was  so  strong  and  decided  on 
the  subject  of  American  affairs  and  evinced  so  mnch  hostility  to  his  country,  that  I 
felt  constrained,  upon  my  return  to  Paris,  to  announce  to  Dr.  Franklin  my  conviction 

*  The  impression  of  Lnzerne,  however,  was  that  Deane,  while  he  had  not  made 
money,  had  speculated  with  the  funds  in  his  hands. 

572 


CHAP.  XIV.]  DEANE.  [§  167. 

that  Mr.  Deane  must  bo  regarded  an  enemy  alike  to  France  and  America.  He  ob- 
served to  me  that  similar  reports  had  reached  him  before,  but  thnt  he  had  been 
unwilling  to  admit  tlicir  trntli."  In  a  note  is  given  a  letter  to  Watson  from  John 
Trumbull,  in  Avliich  he  accouuts  for  Deaue's  course  l)y  saying  that  his  treatment  by 
Congress  and  the  feeling  created  against  liiui  by  tlio  "  intercepted  letters"  "rendered 
him  obnoxious,  and  drove  him  into  voluntary  exile  in  The  Netherlands,  dissatisfied, 
gxasperated,  and  impoverished  ahnost  to  penary.  Thus  forced  into  an  unnatural 
and  friendless  residence  in  foreign  countries,  he  gave  himself  up  to  rage,  resentment, 
and  actual  dispair,  and  vented  his  passion  in  execration  against  France,  Aujerica, 
and  maukiurl.  In  this  condition  you  found  him  in  the  interview  you  mention.  He 
considered  himself  as  a  man  not  only  abused  and  ill-requited  for  important  services,  but 
denied  those  pecumanj  rcirards  which  had  been  promised  him  for  his  agency  in  Europe." 
(Watson'sMeu  and  Times  of  the  Revolution,  2d  ed.,  151,  152. ) 

The  last  lines  are  italicised  as  giving  the  more  probable  theory  of  Deane's  defection. 
His  poverty  shows  that  he  was  enriched  neither  by  official  peculation  nor  by  royal 
bounty. 

On  August  28,  1789,  Jefferson,  at  Paris,  wrote  to  Madison  : 

"  Silas  Deane  is  coming  over  to  tiuish  his  days  in  America,  not  having  one  sou  to 
subsist  on  elsewhere.  He  is  a  wretched  monument  of  the  consequences  of  a  departure 
from  right."     (3  Jefferson's  Works,  101.) 

He  never,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  reached  America,  dying  on  his  way  over. 

Belief  given  to  his  heirs.  §  167.  Tlie  claiui  of  Deaoe's  heirs  for  compensa- 

tion was  brought  before  Congress  in  1840  by  a 
petition,  which  was  reported  on  February  17,  1841,  by  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Revolutionary  Claims,  favorably  to  the  petitioners.  The  re- 
port confines  itself  to  the  question  of  Mr.  Deane's  accounts  at  the  close 
of  his  mission  and  does  not  touch  bis  subsequent  conduct.  The  same 
line  is  pursued  in  a  report  by  tbe  Senate  Committee  on  Revolutionary 
Claims  on  Februar}^  3,  1842,  and  by  the  House  committee  on  tlie  same 
subject  on  July  27,  1842.  On  this  basis  the  relief  asked  for  was,  in  a 
modified  shape,  granted. 

573 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

DANA,  CABMICHAEL,  LAURENS. 
Dana's  early  consressionai  ^  igg,  Francis  Dana  was  bom  ill  Cliarl^^stown, 

services. 

Massachusetts,  iu  Juue,  1743,  and  after  gradu- 
ating at  Harvard  College  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1767.  He  early 
took  a  part  on  the  patriot  side  in  the  contest  with  England,  and  in  1 774 
opposed  with  vigor  a  resolution  of  compliment  to  Governor  Hutchinson 
when  leaving  Boston  for  England.  In  1774  he  was  elected  to  the  first 
provincial  congress  of  Massachusetts,  and  after  a  short  visit  to  Eng- 
land, for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  information  as  to  the  British  temper 
towards  America,  he  returned  to  the  United  States,  reporting  that  there 
was  no  hope  of  satisfactory  concessions.  He  was  sent  on  his  return  to 
the  Congresses  of  1776  and  of  1778,  in  which  bodies  he  a<tted  in  the 
main  with  Samuel  Adams,*  in  whom  he  imposed  peculiar  confidence, 
and  whose  distinctive  political  views  he  then  shared.  In  the  critical 
session  at  York,  Pennsylvania,  when  Washington  was  at  Valley  Forge, 
he  acted,  as  we  have  seen,  with  those  who  strove  to  restrict  Washing- 
ton's authority.  To  John  Adams  he  felt  himself  so  strongly  bound, 
that  he  accepted,  in  September,  1779,  the  api)ointment  of  secretary  to  the 
commission  on  which  Adams  was  then  appointed  to  negotiate  for  i)eace 
with  Britain.  On  November  13,  1779,  both  minister  and  secretary 
sailed  for  Europe,  and  landed  at  Ferrol,  Spain,  in  time  to  reach  Paris 
early  in  February,  1780.  There,  however,  they  had  nothing  to  do. 
They  could  not,  under  their  instructions,  negotiate  with  Britain  with- 
out the  assent  of  France,  and  they  could  do  nothing  in  the  way  of  nego- 
tiating in  Paris,  since  Yergennes  had  declined,  in  consequence  of  a  dif- 
ficulty already  noticed,  to  correspond  with  Adams.  With  the  exception 
of  a  brief  visit  to  Amsterdam  in  company  with  Adams,  on  a  commis- 
sion to  raise  money  in  Holland,  Dana  remained  without  employment 
until  March,  1781,  when  he  received  a  commission  to  proceed  as  minis- 
ter to  Russia. 

Mission  to  Russia.  §  1(39^  Had  Dana  been  sent  to  Paris  as  secretary  to  the 
legation,  making  a  suitable  provision  for  William  Tem- 
ple Franklin  as  under  secretary,  the  public  interests  would  have  been 
subserved  and  the  amount  of  labor  imposed  on  Franklin  properly 
diminished.     But  Congress,  under  the  wild  notion  already  commented 


See  supra,  ^  11,  as  to  Dana's  course  ou  %\x^^  "  Cabal"  issues. 
574 


CHAP.  XV.]        DANA,  CARMICHAEL,  LAURENS.  [§  169. 

on,*  that  money  could  be  got  by  sending  ministers  to  ask  for  it  wherever 
there  was  a  foreign  court,  sent  hiui  first  to  Amsterdam  to  assist  Adams 
on  an  abortive  expedition  of  this  character,  and  then  to  liussia  to  make 
the  same  attempt  by  himself.     It  is  true  that,  as  his  letters  show,  he 
wjis  convinced  of  the  propriety  and  patriotism  of  the  procedure.     His 
attachments  to  both  Samuel  and  John  Adams  were  strong ;  he  imbibed, 
with  the  policy  adopted  by  both  of  an  unsophisticated  revolutionary 
diplomacy,  the  distrust  felt  by  the  latter  for  France;  and  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  during  his  long  residence  abroad  he  ever  changed 
this  opinion.     It  is  true  that  his  position  in  St.  Petersburg  was  one 
not  only  of  helpless  inaction,  but  of  humiliation.     This  was  not  for 
want  of  an  extended  field,  could  he  have  entered  on  it.     St.  Petersburg 
was  then  the  center  of  neutral  diplomatic  action,  and  on  the  conclusions 
of  the  empress  the  future  politics  of  the  world  largely  depended.!     Her 
audacious  political  genius,  joined  as  it  was  to  equally  audacious  domes- 
tic licentiousuess,  gave  tliose  admitted  to  court  secrets  not  merely 
great  opportunities  for  political  intrigue,  but  themes  for  discussion  as 
sensational  as  they  were  momentous.     But  here  Dana  remained  in  the 
city  unknowing  and  unknown.    His  position  was  one  of  the  most  morti- 
fying isolation.     With  the  English  of  course  he  could  have  no  inter- 
course, for,  as  appears  from  the  Malmesbury  papers,  they  studiously 
ignored  his  existence.     Very  few  of  his  own  countrymen  crossed  his 
path,  and  one  of  them,  that  anomalous  character  Stephen  Sayre.f  if  he 
still  remained  there,  he  must  heartily  have  wished  away.     Verac,  the 
French  minister,  was  a  man  of  great  amiability,  whose  interests,  as 
well  as  those  of  France,  all  tended  to  lead  him  to  obtain  as  many 
allies  for  America  as  he  could,  but  Yerac  could  not  speak  English  nor 
Dana  French ;  they  could  not  converse,  and  when  Yerac  wrote  letter 
after  letter  to  advise  delay  in  pressing  for  recognition  until  a  favorable 
answer  could  be  looked  for,  Dana,  after  he  succeeded  in  translating 
them,  thought  they  indicated  no  stron  .c  desire  on  the  part  of  Yerac  that 
the  recognition  should  be  granted.     Dana,  it  is  true,  wrote  from  time 
to  time,  in  English,  stately  letters  to  Eussian  nominal  officials,  in  which 
he  asked  to  be  received  by  the  empress,  whose  political  ability,  as  well 
as  whose  virtues,  he  declared  were  highly  esteemed  in   the   United 
States,  but  to  these  letters  the  only  answers  he  received  were,  as  we 
have  seen,§  rebuffs  or  evasions. 

As  to  Dana's  allegation,  in  a  letter  to  Adams  of  October  18,  1782, 
that  France  sought  to  prevent  the  acknowledgment  of  the  United  States 
by  foreign  powers,  Sparks,  in  a  manuscript  note  in  Harvard  Collection, 
volume  32,  says: 

''This  notion  is  certainly  an  error.  In  the  secret  convention  between  France  and 
Spain  dated  April  12,  1779,  France  pressed  it  npon  Spain  to  acknowledge  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States,  which  the  latter  declined.     This  was  the  only  power 

*  Supra,  ^  16,  106,  f  See  supra,  ^  92,  tinfra,  $  193.  ^  Supra,  ^  95. 

575 


§170]  DIPLOMATIC    COREESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XV. 

on  which  Francecould  exert  any  influence  to  that  end."  The  French  ministers  *'  knew 
full  -well  that  no  such  reception  could  take  place  till  the  war  ended,  and  they  wisely 
advised  the  American  ministers  not  to  insist  on  it,  as  they  could  only  meet  with  a 
refusal." 

According  to  a  note  of  Luzerne,  given  by  Sparks  in  volume  78  of  the 
Harvard  MSS.,  Yerac^  the  French  minister  at  St.  Peterspurg,  advised 
Dana  not  to  force  his  credentials  on  Eussia,  because  "  M.  Dana  I'auroit 
immauquablement  compromis."  '•'■  If  we  perceived  in  Eussia,"  this  note 
goes  on  to  say,  "  any  tendency  to  consider  and  treat  the  Americans  as 
independent,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  we  should  zealously  concur 
in  such  a  movement." 

Even  after  the  preliminary  articles  were  signed  he  was  told  that  he 
would  not  be  received  unless  he  produced  a  new  commission,  as  the  Em- 
press could  not  accept  a  communication  issued  by  the  Colonies  when 
in  a  state  of  insurrection ;  and  when  this  pretext  was  given  up  he  was 
informed  that  it  was  ''  Lent,"  when  Catherine  did  not  attend  to  secular 
affairs;  and  again,  that  he  must  wait  until  the  signature  of  a  definite 
peace.  Had  he,  or  those  who  forced  him  on  St.  Petersburg,  been  aware 
that  it  was  the  peculiar  ambition  of  Catherine  to  build  uj)  her  carrying 
trade  by  the  vigilant  assertion  of  her  neutral  rights,  which  she  would 
have  subjected  to  forfeiture  had  she  lent  money  to  the  United  States 
or  even  recognized  them,  it  would  have  been  understood  that  there  was 
a  reason  for  his  repulse  aside  from  Cathariue's  natural  aversion  to  revo- 
lutions. But  of  these  conditions  he  was  apparently  ignorant.  His  dis- 
patches therefore,  hereafter  given,  present  only  such  views  of  Eussia  as 
a  mere  outsider  would  be  likely  to  take.  He  prepared,  it  is  true,  an  elabo- 
rate scheme  of  a  commercial  treaty  with  Eussia,  which  was  never  pre- 
sented, as  he  neverwas  received  in  a  position  in  wliich  such  a  presen- 
tation could  be  made;  for,  even  when  it  seemed  probable  that  he  might 
be  received,  he  was  appalled  at  the  enormous  expenses  which  he  was 
told  such  a  reception  would  impose  on  him.  It  was  about  this  time 
Congress  determined  on  his  recall.* 

Dana's  views  after  the        §  170.  After  the  pcacc,  Daua^s  vicws,  like  those 

peace.  "^  ^  '  ' 

of  John  Adams,  underwent  an  essential  modifica- 
tion,t  and  he  became  convinced  that  it  was  necessary  to  the  welfare  of 
the  country  that  a  government  should  be  organized  in  which  the  judici- 
ary and  the  executive  should  be  co-ordinate  with  the  legislature.  He 
was  elected  to  Congress  in  1784,  and  gave  his  support  to  the  depart- 
ment system,  which  he  had  previously  opposed.  On  January  18,  1785, 
he  was  appointed  to  the  supreme  court  of  Massachusetts  by  Governor 

*  See  supra,  ^  4,  for  views  of  Hamilton  and  Madisou  as  to  his  mission  ;  and  see  in- 
dex, titles  Dana,  Russia. 

For  a  notice  of  Francis  Dana  by  R.  H.  Dana,  see  I  Penn.  Mag.  of  History,  etc., 
86  jf.  As  to  Dana's  concurrence  with  Adams  in  tlie  rebuking  letters  to  Vergennes  in 
July,  1780,  see  supra,  ^  15. 

t  See  supra,  ^  4. 

576 


CHAP.  XV.]        DANA,  CARMICHAEL,  LAURENS,  [§  171. 

Hancock,  and  he  was  one  of  the  majority  of  tlie  Massaclmsetts  State 
convention  Avbicli  ratified  the  Federal  Constitution.  In  his  reaction 
from  the  extreme  scliool  of  New  England  politics  to  wliich  lie  at  first 
attached  himself  he  may  have  swung  a  little  too  far  in  the  opposite  di- 
rection, for  in  his  later  days  he  seemed  to  doubt  whether  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  was  a  sufticient  safeguard  against  democratic 
inroads.  But  in  his  own  State  his  services  were  eminent.  He  was  ap- 
pointed chief-justice  in  November,  1791,  which  post  he  resigned,  on 
account  of  ill  health,  in  1806.  He  died  in  1811,  leaving  the  character 
of  a  "typical  representative  of  the  feudal  gentry  of  New  England,  who 
looked  upon  themselves  as  the  guardians  of  the  people,  and  sought  to 
preserve  distinction  of  birth  and  station,"*  having  gradually  assumed 
a  position  widely  apart  from  the  inexorable  doctrinaire  democracy  of 
Samuel  Adams,  his  early  chief.  Dana  left  a  son,  Richard  H.  Dana, 
eminent  as  a  poet.  His  grandson,  Richard  H.  Dana,  was  distinguished 
both  in  literature  and  law,  and  is  received  as  high  authority  in  interna- 
tional law  as  an  editor  of  Wheaton's  great  treatise. 

Carmicbaeis  diplomatic        §  171.  a  William  Carmlchacl  was  a  native  of  Marv- 

career.  ■*  *■ 

land.     At  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution  he  was  in 


&'"""'to 


Europe.  From  Loudon  he  went  over  to  Paris  in  the  spring  of  the  year 
1770,  and  was  there  when  Silas  Deaue  arrived  as  a  commercial  and 
political  agent  from  the  United  States.  He  lived  with  Mr.  Deane  lor 
some  time  in  Paris,  aud  aided  him  in  his  correspondence  and  the  trans- 
action of  his  affairs.  It  was  suggested  by  the  Prussian  miuister  that 
the  king  would  be  x^leased  with  information  respecting  American  com- 
merce, and  would  receive  at  Berlin  any  American  who  could  give  such 
information.  Mr.  Deane  proposed  the  enterprise  to  Mr.  Carmichael. 
He  performed  the  journey  in  the  autumn  of  177G,  by  way  of  Ams- 
terdam. 

"  From  Berlin  he  returned  to  Paris,  where  he  lived  on  intimate  terms 
with  the  American  commissioners,  occasionally  executing  specific  duties 
at  their  request  for  more  than  a  year,  till  he  sailed  for  his  native  coun- 
try. He  arrived  at  Boston  in  May,  1778,  and  soon  afterwards  received 
an  appointment,  which  had  recently  been  conferred  on  him  b}^  Congress, 
as  secretary  to  the  commissioners  at  the  court  of  France.  It  does  not 
appear  that  he  ever  accei)ted  this  appointment,  for  on  the  19th  of  No- 
vember following  he  took  his  seat  in  Congress  as  a  delegate  from  Mary- 
land. 

*'Mr.  Carmichaelremained  in  Congress  till  Mr.  Jay  was  elected  minister 
plenipotentiary  to  the  court  of  Spain.  He  was  chosen  secretary  of  lega- 
tion to  the  same  mission  on  the  28th  of  September,  1779,  and  went  to 
Spain  in  company  with  Mr.  Ja3',  and  remained  with  him  during  the 
whole  of  that  minister's  residence  in  Madrid.     When  Mr.  Jay  joined 

*  See  Appleton's  Cyclop,  of  Biography,  title  Dana. 

37  WH  577 


§  172.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE,  [CHAP.  XV. 

Dr.  Franklin  in  Paris,  June,  1782,  to  aid  in  the  negotiations  of  peace, 
Mr.  Oarmichael  was  left  as  charge  d'affaires  at  the  court  of  Spain. 
After  the  peace  he  was  regularly  cominissioued  in  that  character  by 
Congress,  and  recognized  as  such  by  the  king  of  Spain. 

*^He  continued  to  reside  there  in  the  same  capacity  during  the  term  of 
the  old  Confederation,  and  for  some  time  after  the  organization  of  the 
new  government  under  Washington.  In  the  year  1793  [1792?]  Mr. 
Short  was  joined  with  him  in  a  commission  for  negotiating  at  Madrid 
a  treaty  between  Spain  and  the  United  States.  Several  months  were 
passed  in  this  attempt,  but  without  success.  Mr.  Carmichael  returned 
soon  afterwards  to  the  United  States."  *     He  died  in  1795. 

Carmichael's  dispatches  will  be  found  at  large  in  the  following  vol- 
umes. He  seems  to  have  distrusted  Deane,  and  when  in  Congress  was 
appealed  to  as  having  expressed  this  distrust.  With  Arthur  Lee  his 
relations  were  far  from  friendly,  and  against  him  Arthur  Lee  sent  to 
Congress  divers  complaints.  With  Franklin  his  relations  were  those 
of  peculiar  confidence,  t 

Of  Carmichael,  Jefferson,  in  a  letter  from  Paris  to  Monroe,  of  Janu- 
ary 27,  178;>,  writes: 

'  With  him  I  aui  unacquaiuted  personally,  bat  he  stands  on  advantageous  grounds 
in  the  opinion  of  Europe,  and  most  especially  in  Spain.  Every  person  whom  I  see 
from  thence  speaks  of  him  with  great  esteem.  I  mention  this  for  your  private  satis- 
factiou,  as  he  seemed  to  bo  little  known  in  Congress."  (1  Jefferson's  Works,  by 
Washington,  526.     See  also  2  id.,  107.) 

Henry  Laurens' diplomatic       s  172.  Hcnrv  Laurcus  was  bom  iu  Charleston, 

appojnttuent.  •'  "  ' 

South  Carolina,  in  1724,  of  Huguenot  lineage.  He 
began  his  business  career  as  a  clerk  in  a  counting  house  in  Charles 
ton,  and  then,  after  a  short  experience,  became,  in  1740,  a  clerk  in  a 
London  house,  in  which  position  he  remained  several  years,  and  made 
numerous  acquaintances,  laying  also  the  foundation  of  his  fortune  by 
independent  speculation.  Eeturning  to  Charleston,  he  took  a  leading 
position  as  a  merchant,  amassing  a  considerable  estate,  a  portion  of 
which  he  invested  in  England.  His  interest  in  shipping  brought  him 
into  several  controversies  with  the  British  admiralty  court,  sitting  at 
Charleston,  and  in  the  publications  he  made  relativ^e  thereto  he  showed 
wit,  zeal,  and  skill.  His  attachment  to  England  was  strong,  and  serving 
as  lieutenant-colonel  in  1761,  under  General  Grant,  he  took  ground  with 
that  officer  in  disputes  in  which  he  was  involved  with  other  American 
subordinates.  In  1765  he  sustained  the  constitutionality  of  the  stamp 
act,  and  was  at  that  period  much  opposed  to  forcible  resistance  to 
British  authority.  Visiting  England  in  1771,  he  remained  there  and 
on  the  Continent  of  Europe  more  than  three  years,  making  judicious  in- 
vestments in  foreign  funds,  and  superintending  the  education  of  his 
children.    In  1775,  having  returned  to  Charleston,  he  was  a  member  of 

*  5  Spark's  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  3.  t  See  index,  titles  Carmichael,  Franklin. 

578 


CHAP.  XV.]        DANA,  CARMICHAEL,  LAURENS.  [§  172. 

the  first  provincial  (H)micil  of  South  Oiiioliiia.  The  aniiouncemeut  of 
the  Decbuation  of  liKlei)eiulence  he  lieaid,  so  he  tells  us,  with  pain, 
but  he  afterwards  acMpiiesced  in  it,  and,  on  his  election  to  Congress, 
where  he  took  his  seat  on  July  22,  1776,  he  gave  the  principle  of  inde- 
pendence his  support.  He  agreed  with  Franklin  and  Morris  as  to  the 
impolicy  of  issuing  paper  nu)ney  without  a  pledge  of  adecpiate  taxation 
to  secure  it ;  and,  not  merely  because  he  was  opposed  to  issuing  paper 
without  the  certain  means  of  redeeming  it,  but  because  he  distrusted 
France,  he  was  opposed  to  drawing  and  putting  in  circulation  bills  on 
France  until  assured  that  they  would  be  paid.* 

On  November  1,  1777,  he  was  elected  President  of  Congress,  and 
became  on  several  occasions,  as  we  will  hereafter  see,  its  organ  in  con- 
ducting its  diplomatic  correspondence.  On  December  1,  1778,  he  re- 
signed as  President,  and  his  business  affairs  becoming  deranged,  and 
his  position  in  Congress  becoming  one  of  difficulty  for  reasons  to  hi 
l)resently  noticed,  he  sought,  as  the  pai)ers  of  the  day  tell  us,  a  foreign 
appointment;  and  in  October,  1770,  he  was  elected  minister  to  The 
Netherlands,  with  instructions  to  negotiate  a  treaty  with  that  country, 
and  if  possible  to  obtain  there  a  loan.  He  took  passage  at  Philadel- 
phia on  August  13,  in  a  small  packet  boat  called  the  Mercury,  under 
the  convoy  of  the  sloop-of-war  Saratoga^  which,  however,  five  days  after 
they  were  at  sea,  returned  to  port.  On  September  3,  the  Mercury  was 
chased  and  finally  seized  by  the  British  cruiser  Vestal.  According 
to  Laurens'  statement,  in  a  letter  hereafter  given  under  date  of  Sep- 
tember 14, 1780,  "  certain  i)apers,  among  which  were  all  those  delivered 
to  me  by  Mr.  Lovell  and  the  board  of  admiralty,  fell  into  Captain  Kep- 
pel's  hands.  These  papers  had  been  inclosed  in  a  bag,  accompanied 
by  a  reasonable  weight  of  iron  shot,  and  thrown  overboard,  but  the 
weight  proved  insufticient  for  the   purpose  intended.!     *      *     *     x 

*  See  Ills  letter  of  Sept.  10,  1777,  giving  his  reasons,  in  2  Gibbes'  Doc.  Hist.  Rev., 
88.  In  this  letter  he  states  that  the  vote  against  him  was  21  to  5  ;  ''  i  'ol.  Harrison, 
Mr.  John  Adams,  W.  Duane,  W.  Middleton,  and  Mr.  Lanrens,  nays."  "  The  enemies 
near  each  other,  and  within  thirty  miles'of  this  city  ;  "  wliich  may  account  for  the 
adoption  of  so  strong  a  measure. 

tin  a  narrative  published  by  Laurens  after  his  return  a  somewhat  different  account 
is  given.  "Before  my  embarkation  I  applied  to  a  member  of  the  committee  for 
foreign  affairs  for  a  copy  of  a  sketch  of  a  treaty  projected  by  Mynheer  Vanberkel,  of 
Amsterdam,  and  Mr.  William  Lee,  in  the  service  of  Congress,  as  a  foundation  for 
what  might  he  a  proper  treaty  between  the  United  Provinces  and  the  United  States 
when  the  independence  of  the  latter  should  be  established.  The  gentleman  reijlied 
'you  may  take  the  original,  it  has  never  been  read  in  Congress,  and  is  a  paper  of  no 
authority.'  He  gave  me  the  original.  I  threw  it  into  a  trunk  of  papers,  chiefly 
waste,  intending  to  garble  the  whole  at  sea,  and  preserve  the  few  which  I  should  think 
worth  saving.  This  unauthentic  paper — the  project-eventual  of  two  gentlemen  in 
their  private  capacities — was  made  by  Great  Britain  the  foundation  of  a  war  with  the 
United  Provinces.  *  *  *  Such  papers  as  were  thought  to  be  of  importance,  on 
board  the  Mercury,  were  thrown  overboard  or  burned  ;  but  the  trunk  of  useless  x^apers 
above  mentioned  remained.     My  secretary,  Major  Moses  Young,  asked  me  what  he 

579 


§172.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [c  HA  P.  XV. 

should  be  wanting  in  justice,  and  indeed  deficient  in  common  gratitude, 
were  I  to  omit  an  acknowledgment  of  Captain  Keppel's  kindness  to 
m^'Self  and  to  everybody  captured  in  tbe  Mercury,  Captain  Pickles^ 
conduct  while  he  had  command  of  that  vessel  was  perfectly  satisfiictory 
to  me." 

It  was  not  strange,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  disclosure  of  the  papers 
thus  seized  led  to  an  almost  immediate  declaration  of  war  by  Britain 
against  Tbe  Netherlands  and  by  the  seizure  by  British  cruisers  of  all 
Dutch  merchantmen  which  could  be  found,  that  the  circumstances  of 
this  seizure  should  have  been  closely  scrutinized.  No  disclosure  of  this 
kind  perhaps  ever  had  such  momentous  consequences.  To  the  British 
ministry  the  papers  appeared  to  show^  that  the  Dutch  Government  was 
preparing  to  join  France  and  Spain  as  soon  as  its  navy  was  in  proper 
trim  and  its  merchantmen  notified  of  the  danger  impending.  Had  such 
a  union  been  eft\?cted  the  Dutch  navy,  added  to  the  French  and  Spanish, 
would  have  given  the  allies  a  decided  naval  superiority.  Believing,  or 
claiming  to  believe,  that  this  danger  was  imminent,  Britain  anticipated 
it  not  merely  by  blockading  Dutch  ports  and  i)reventing  the  Dutch 
navy  from  going  to  sea,  but  b\^  filling  the  coffers  of  British  cruisers  by 
the  enormous  prize  money  collected  by  the  seizure  of  Dutch  merchant- 
men. Under  the  shock  of  results  so  disastrous  to  the  allies  they  natu- 
rally examined  with  not  very  friendly  eyes  Laurens'  course  at  the  time 
of  his  capture.  His  English  attachments,  it  was  said,  had  been  well 
known  prior  to  his  sailing,  and  may  i)erhaps  have  prevented  him  from 
availing  himself  of  a  French  man-of-war  or  a  French  convoy,  as  he  might 
have  done,  instead  of  taking  a  mere  brigantine  and  in  it  venturing  on 
waters  so  frequented  by  British  cruisers  as  were  those  of  Newfoundhmd. 
This  criticism,  however,  had  no  just  ground  or  foundation,  since  Lau- 
rens when  he  sailed  had  the  convoy  of  an  American  sloop-of-war,  and 
it  was  through  a  disobedience  of  orders  for  which  he  was  not  responsi- 
ble that  he  was  not  accompanied  by  two  American  frigates,  who  would 
have  given  him  ample  protection.  It  is  not  so  easy,  however,  to  acquit 
him  of  negligence  in  not  destroying  the  draft-treaty.  By  his  first  state- 
ment all  his  papers  were  thrown  overboard  together  and  seized  by  the 

should  do  with  tliem.  I  replied,  'They  may  remain  where  they  are  ;  they  are  of  no 
consequence.'  But  recollecting  there  were  private  papers  among  them,  and  being 
urged,  I  consented  they  should  also  he  thrown  overboard.  This  was  done  in  souje 
confusion,  the  papers  being  put  in  along  bag  and  twenty  or  twenty-live  pounds 
weight  of  shot  upon  them.  The  air  in  the  long  bag  buoyed  up  just  the  mouth  of  it. 
The  people  on  board  the  frigate  instantly  perceived  and  hooked  it  up.  These  Avere 
Mr.  Laurens'  i>apers,  so  much  talked  of  throughout  Europe,  for  arranging  of  Avhicii 
the  British  ministry  gave  Mr.  Galloway,  according  to  report,  £500  sterling,  and  were 
at  farther  expense  to  bind  in  rough  calf,  gild,  and  letter  them  in  eighteen  folio  vol- 
umes, and  afterwards  returned  the  whole  to  Mr.  Laurens  again." 

The  narrative  referred  to  above  is  in  vol.  1,  of  the  Collections  of  the  South  Carolina 
Historical  Society,  18  ff.  In  18  Magazine  of  American  History,  1  (July,  1887),  is  given 
an  abstract  of  this  narrative.  An  account  of  Laurens'  capture  is  given  in  the  London 
Annual  Register  for  1780,  329. 

580 


CHAP.  XV.]  DANA,  CARMICHAEL,  LAURENS.  [§172. 

British.  By  his  second  statement  it  was  only  papers  which  lie  thought 
were  of  no  consequence  that  were  thus  captured.  Taking  either  state- 
ment, however,  lie  had  ample  opportunity  to  destroy  this  paper,  and  it 
is  not  strange  that  the  French  and  Dutch  Governments  were  not  satis- 
fied with  his  excuse  given  in  his  second  statement,  that  he  did  not 
consider  the  paper  to  be  important.  His  laudations  of  the  officers 
of  tlie  Vestal  were  also  criticised,  and  taking  them  in  connection 
with  the  confused,  contradictory,  and  sometimes  compromising  let- 
ters written  by  him  in  the  Tower,  to  be  noticed  in  the  next  section, 
exposed  him  to  ju^t  censure.  Of  disloyalty  he  can  not  be  justly  accused. 
But  that  he  was  deficient,  in  critical  moments,  both  in  sagacity  and  in 
resolution  several  incidents  of  his  life  show.  When  in  Congress  he  per- 
mitted himself  to  write  letters  attacking  the  revolutionary  machinery, 
which,  intercepted  by  the  British  and  published,  were  not  without  mis- 
chievous results.*  Carried  away  by  the  Saratoga  victory  he  for  a  time 
attached  himself  personally  to  Gates,  w^hile  he  not  unnaturally  strove 
to  concentrate  political  power  in  Congress,  of  which  he  was  at  the  time 
president,  yet  he  did  not  show  the  persistency  in  this  line  displayed 
by  the  '^Lees  and  Adamses,"  and  under  the  influence  it  maybe  of  his 
gallant  son  he  sought,  w^hen  the  movement  against  Washington  failed, 
to  bring  Gates,  as  we  have  seen,  once  more  in  friendly  relations  to  Wash- 
ington. Of  his  course  in  the  Tower  we  will  speak  in  the  next  section, 
but  it  may  be  here  said  that  on  referring  to  his  letters  when  thus  im- 
prisoned t  it  will  be  noticed  what  contradictory  statements  came  from 
him  as  to  the  treatment  he  there  received  and  as  to  the  aid  which  came 
to  him  from  his  friends.  The  same  irresolution  was  exhibited  by  him 
when  released  and  when  the  question  of  his  assuming  the  i)osition  of 

*  Henry  Laurens'  '•'intercepted"  letter  of  Aug.  27,  17T8,  hi  which  he  refers  (or  is 
alleged  to  refer)  to  the  "  scenes  of  venality,  peculation,  and  fraud"  in  Congress,  is 
given  in  the  London  Chronicle  for  1778,  I,  573. 

The  sauie  kind  of  attack  on  Congress  is  repeated  in  a  diary  which  appears  to  have 
been  kept  by  liim  when  in  the  Tower.  Charges  of  this  kind  coining  from  him  were 
eagerly  caught  up  by  the  ministry  as  proof  of  the  hoUowness  of  the  American  cause. 

Laurens'  high  sense  of  the  prerogatives  of  Congress  and  of  his  dignity  as  President 
may  have  been  the  cause  of  some  of  the  difficulties  which  attended  his  presidency. 
If  things  did  not  go  as  he  liked  he  did  not  hesitate  to  express  his  disapproval  in  terms 
not  very  decorous,  which,  when  published,  as  in  tlie  case  of  the  intercepted  letters, 
involved  him  in  serious  difficulties  with  one  of  the  parties  attacked.  His  treatment 
of  Charles  Thomson,  secretary  of  Congress,  one  of  the  purest  and  most  patriotic  of 
men,  was  peculiarly  outrageous  (see  full  details  given  in  Thomson's  letter  of  Septem- 
ber 6,  1779,  published  in  G  Potter's  Am.  Monthly,  2()4).  It  was  said  to  be  one  of  the 
resnlts  of  irritated  feeling  arising  from  this  and  other  incidents  that  there  was  no 
vote  of  thanks  passed  to  him  on  his  resignation  as  President.  But  Laurens'  resig- 
nation, which  was  put  on  the  gronnd  of  ill-health,  was  offered  on  December  1'2, 1777. 

In  a  letter  of  April  4,  1779,  to  Governor  Caswell,  of  North  Carolina,  Laurens  de- 
fends himself  from  the  charges  of  the  North  Carolina  delegates  in  Congress. 

t  See  index,  title  H.  Laurens'  Papers,  in  vol.  1  of  the  Collection  of  the  South 
Carolina  Historical  Society,  18  Mag.  of  Amer.  History,  1;  and  Moore's  Materials  for 
History,  first  series. 

681 


§  173.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XV. 

peace  commissioner  came  up.  Whether  he  would  act  or  not ;  what  was 
his  position  as  to  negotiating  apart  from  France;  what  was  bis  precise 
attitude  as  to  tlie  fisheries;  why,  after  peace,  he  should  have  remained 
abroad  for  three  years,  are  questions  as  to  which  in  his  correspondence 
this  same  irresoluteness  is  displayed.  If  the  letters  of  Benjamin  Vaughan 
in  the  Lansdowne  collection  are  to  be  relied  on,  Laurens  was  ready  after 
his  release  and  exchange  to  enter  into  peace  negotiations  in  London  apart 
from  Franklin  and  Jay,  and  that  he  was  deterred  from  this  course  by 
Adams'  refusal  to  act  with  him.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  the  influence 
he  exerted  in  the  formation  of  the  treaty  was  but  slight,  and  his  attitude 
as  to  the  mode  of  its  negotiation  and  as  to  its  leading  provisions,  so 
uncertain  as  to  deprive  his  course  in  respect  to  it  of  political  weight. 
He  died  at  Charleston  on  December  8,  1792.* 

A  pamphlet  controversy  arose  in  1782-'83  between  Henry  Laurens  and  Edmiiud  Jen- 
iugs  as  to  certain  anonymous  letters  sent  to  the  commissioners  for  the  apparent  pur- 
pose of  sowing  dissension,  which  Laurens  charged  Jenings  with  writing.  A  copy  of  Lau- 
rens' pamphlet  is  in  the  Congressional  Library,  and  is  elsewhere  noticed,  and  he  bases 
the  charge  on  Jeuings'  suspicious  conduct  in  other  matters  and  on  semi-admissions. 
In  reply  to  Laurens  Jenings  published  ''a  full  manifestation  of  what  Mr.  Henry  Lau- 
rens falsely  denominates  candor  in  himself  and  trick  in  Mr.  Edmund  Jenings,"  Lon- 
don, 1783.  A  copy  of  this  pamphlet  is  in  the  library  of  the  Historical  Society  at  Phil- 
adelphia. It  contains  eighty  pages  of  text,  and  is  of  little  historical  interest,  three- 
fourths  of  it  being  occupied  with  the  writer's  answer  to  the  charge  of  endeavoring  to 
sow  dissensions  between  the  American  commissioners  by  an  anonymous  letter.  He 
states  that  the  post  of  secretary  to  the  commissioners  was  not,  as  Laurens  charges, 
sought  by  him,  but  that  the  nomination  came  from  the  unsolicited  suggestion  of 
Adams. 

His  conrae  in  the  Tower.  ^  ]  73,  As  to  Hcury  Laurcus'  course  iu  the  Tower 

there  has  been  some  uncertainty.  He  was  un- 
doubtedly, through  the  privations  to  which  he  had  been  subjected,  in 
such  a  weak  state  of  haalth,  nervous  and  physical,  as  not  to  be  respon- 
sible for  statements  imputed  to  him,  even  supposing  they  were  made 
by  him.  We  do  not  know  what  was  told  him,  or  how  his  mind  was 
aftected  by  what  he  thus  heard,  or  how  accurately  remarks  he  is  said 
to  have  made  were  reported.  Statements  su»)posed  to  hav^e  emanated 
from  him  as  to  the  brutality  of  his  treatment  were  contradicted  by  other 
statements  to  which  his  name  was  subscribed;  and  his  complaints  that 
he  was  neglected  by  his  countrymen,  and  especially  by  Franklin,  are 
met  by  letters  from  Franklin  to  Cooper  of  November  7,  1780,  and  from 
Franklin  to  Hodgson  of  November  19,  1781,  showing  that  Franklin  had 
interposed  in  his  behalf,  and  had  forwarded  money  for  his  relief.  It 
was  further  alleged  that  when  in  the  Tower  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons,  claiming  indulgence,  not  as  an 
American  envoy,  but  as  a  former  British  subject,  who,  when  President 

*  Letters  of  both  Henry  and  Jolin  Laurens,  with  a  memoir  by  W.  Gilmore  Simms 
of  John  Laurens,  are  given  iu  the  seventh  volume  of  the  publications  of  the  Bradford 
Club,  New  York,  1867. 

582 


CHAP.  XV.]  DANA,  CARMrCIIAEL,  LAUUENS.  [§  173. 

of  Congress,  had  been  recognized  as  such  by  the  British  peace  commis- 
sioners, and  who  had  been  particnUuly  kind  to  *<  h)yalists  and  quietists" 
as  well  as  to  British  prisoners.  This  letter  was  the  subject  of  animated 
discussion  in  Congress  on  September  10,  1782,*  but  its  publication  was 
not  considered  by  a  majority  of  Congress  to  aiibrd  ground  for  his  re- 
call from  the  peace  commission,  to  which  he  had  been  previously  ap- 
pointed. And  there  may  be  now  a  general  acquiescence  in  Rives'  sum- 
mary of  this  painful  controversy,  that  Laurens'  subsequent  course 
^'atoned,  in  Mr.  Madison's  estimation,  for  this  momentary  departure 
froDi  the  elevated  bearing  of  an  American  representative ;  the  unhappy 
effect,  doubtless,  of  a  long  and  debilitating  confinement,  and  the  de- 
rangement of  health,  mental  and  bodily,  wdiich  it  superinduced."  t  Nor 
was  there  anything  clandestine  about  this  letter,  or  anything  promis- 
ing a  change  of  allegiance,  such  as  there  was  in  the  letters  sent  by 
some  of  the  ministers  of  William  III  to  the  court  of  St.  Germain. 
Laurens'  letter  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Commons  for  publication,  and 
was  afterwards  referred  to  by  him  without  any  appearance  on  his  part 
of  regarding  it  as  showing  a  spirit  disloyal  to  the  United  States.  It 
was  not  meant  by  him  to  be  such.  It  was  not  the  letter  of  a  hero ;  but 
he  was  at  the  time  a  very  sick  man;  the  condition  of  affairs,  with  the 
little  information  he  then  had,  may  have  seemed  to  him  desperate;  and 
while  not  forsaking  the  cause,  apparently  lost,  he  may  be  excused  for 
pleading,  in  his  sick  and  solitary  imprisonment,  his  prior  good  relations 
with  England  as  a  ground  for  relief. 

As  to  Laurens'  treatment  in  the  Tower  the  following,  from  the  Lon- 
don Annual  Register  of  1782,  148  ,j^.,  may  be  of  interest: 

"As  a  farther  proof  of  the  partial  and  oppressive  conduct  of  government  towards  the 
lieutenant-general,  Mr.  Burke  informed  the  house  that  he  had  received  a  letter  from 
Dr.  Franklin  inclosing  a  resolution  of  Congress  by  which  he  was  empowered  to  treat 
with  the  British  ministry  for  the  purpose  of  exchanging  General  Burgoyne  for  Mr. 
Laurens.  This  negotiation  Dr.  Franklin  had  requested  Mr.  Burke  to  undertake,  and 
he  had  accordingly  made  the  proper  official  applications,  but  hitherto  without  effect. 

''In  the  conversation  which  afterwards  took  place  on  this  subject  the  charge  of 
Mr.  Laurens  having  been  treated  with  unusual  rigor  was  positively  denied.  In 
proof  of  this  assertion  a  letter  was  read  from  the  lieutenant-governor  of  the  Tower, 
dated  November,  1780,  in  which  he  acquaints  one  of  the  secretaries  of  state  that  ho 
had  waited  on  Mr.  Laurens  for  the  express  purpose  of  satisfying  himself  with  respect 
to  the  treatment  he  had  received,  and  that  he  learned  from  his  own  mouth  that 
he  had  met  with  every  civility  and  kindness  that  he  could  possibly  hope  for.  A  mem- 
ber also  got  up  and  declared  that  the  lieutenant-governor  had  again  visited  his  pris- 
oner within  the  last  three  days,  and  that  he  had  not  heard  there  was  the  smallest 
ground  of  complaint. 

''Between  these  contradictory  assertions  the  matter  remained  suspended  till  the 
day  of  adjournment  of  the  house,  when  Mr.  Burke  brought  up  a  representation  and 
prayer,  addressed  to  the  House  of  Commons  by  Mr.  Laurens  himself,  which  was,  on 

*  See  i»/m,  nnder  that  date;  see  also  Madison  to  Randolph,  Sept.  24,  1782;  Liv- 
ingston to  Adams,  Nov.  18,  1782.  That  he  wrote  this  letter  is  admitted  by  him  in  his 
statement  published  in  the  Collection  of  the  South  Carolina  Historical  Society. 

t  1  Rives'  Madison,  346,  note. 

583 


§174.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XV. 

a  motion,  laid  on  the  table.  It  was  reruaikable  that  this  petition  was  written  by 
Mr.  Laurens  himself  with  a  black  lead  pencil,  he  having,  as  is  supposed,  refused  to 
accept  of  some  indulgences  that  liad  been  lately  otTered  him,  and  among  the  rest  that 
of  pen  and  ink,  the  use  of  which  had  been,  during  the  greatest  part  of  his  confine- 
ment, strictly  forbidden  him. 

"It  may  not  be  improper  in  this  place  to  add  that  the  ad.nission  of  Mr.  Laurens  to 
bail  and  the  exchange  of  General  Burgoyne,  which  soon  after  took  place,  together 
with  the  subsequent  alterations  in  the  political  government  of  the  country,  made  it 
unnecessary  for  Mr.  Burke  to  proceed  with  his  intended  bill  of  regulation." 

Of  Laurens'  arrival  at  the  Tower  we  have  the  following  notice  by 
Horace  Walpole : 

''  Lord  George  Gordon  has  just  got  a  neighbor — I  believe  not  a  companion  ;  for 
state  prisoners  are  not  allowed  to  be  very  sociable.  Laurens,  lately  President  of 
Congress,  has  been  taken  by  a  natural  son  of  the  late  Lord  Albemarle  and  brought 
to  England,  to  London,  to  the  Tower.  He  was  going  ambassador  to  Holland,  and  his 
papers  are  captured  too.  I  should  think  the}'^  could  tell  us  but  what  we  learnt  a  fort- 
night ago;  and  (which  is  more  wonderful,  what  we  would  not  l)elieve  till  a  fortnight 
ago)  that  there  is  an  end  of  our  American  dream.  Perhaps  they  will  give  nsback  a 
cranny  in  exchange  for  their  negotiator."  (Walpole  to  Mann,  October  9,  178U; 
7  Cunningham's  Walpole,  450.) 

An  article  by  Peter  Force  on  Henry  Laurens  in  the  Tower  is  in  the  Historiciil 
Magazine  for  March,  18G7.  In  the  same  paper  for  February,  18G7,  is  an  abstract  of 
the  congressional  debate  of  May,  1779,  on  Laurens'  correspondence  with  Houston. 

In  7  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  ed.,  1^03,  u.,  will  be  found  an  animated  sketch  of 
Burke's  proceedings  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  reference  to  Laurens'  release. 

The  question  of  the  exchange  of  Laurens  for  Cornwailis,  as  discussed  in  Congress, 
is  noticed  in  1  Madison  Papers,  2Q2ff. 

John  Laurrna,  his  mission  to        §  174.  The  diplomatic  Career  of  John  Laureus, 

son  of  Henry  Lanrens,  while  brief,  was  highly 
honorable.  In  the  army  he  was  in  service  as  aid-de-camp  to  Washing- 
ton, whose  pecnliar  favor  he  enjoyed.  An  accomplished  scholar,  hav- 
ing been  educated  in  part  in  Geneva,  in  part  in  London,  he  was  ap- 
pointed on  September  28,  1770,  secretary  to  the  Paris  legation.  This 
appointment  he  declined,  but  on  December  23,  1780,  being  then  in  his 
twenty-fifth  year,  he  was  chosen  by  Congress  as  special  envoy  to  Paris, 
in  order  to  press  on  the  French  court,  as  from  his  military  experience 
he  was  peculiarly  capable  of  doing,  the  need  of  further  aid  for  the 
army.  He  arrived  in  Paris  on  March  19, 1781,  where  he  displayed  much 
energy  ami  zeal,  and  where,  according  to  Sparks,  his  ^'  forwardness 
and  impatience  w^ere  somewhat  displeasing  to  the  French  ministry,  as 
not  altogether  consistent  with  their  ideas  of  tiie  dignity  and  deference 
belonging  to  transactions  with  courts.  They  made  allowance,  however, 
for  the  ardor  and  inexperience  of  youth,  and  seemed  not  to  have  been 
influenced  by  those  objectionable  points  of  manners  in  their  estimation 
of  his  noble  and  generous  traits  of  character  or  in  their  disposition  to 
listen  to  his  requests."* 

*  5  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  144. 

A  detailed  account  of  John  Laurens'  mission  is  to  he  found  in  Simms'  ''Army  Cor- 
respondence of  John  Laurens,"  New  York,  18(37,  :J2^/".     While  this  work  does  no  more 
than  justice  to  John  Laurens'  gallantry  and  patriotism,  it  places  too  high  a  valuation 
on  his  attempt  at  Paris  to  negotiate  a  loan. 
584 


CHAP.  XV.]        DANA,  CARMICHAEL,  LAURENS.  [§  174. 

Ill  the  following  volumes  will  be  fouiul  the  annals  of  bis  mission  as 
given  by  himself,  showing  at  once  his  zeal,  his  modest}^,  and  his  dis- 
appointment, a  disaijpointment  attiibutable  much  more  to  the  mistake 
made  by  Congress  in  sending  him  to  France  with  instructions  so  per- 
emi)tory  and  urgent,  than  to  any  want  of  due  effort  by  himself.* 

After  an  absence  of  six  months  he  returned  to  America,  wliere,  after 
gallant  services  at  Yorktown,  he  died,  on  August  27,  1782,  of  a  wound 
received  in  repelling  a  British  marauding  party  from  Charleston.  He 
thus,  in  almost  the  last  action  of  the  war,  lost  a  life  tlian  which  few 
others  in  that  war  was  more  marked  by  both  gallantry  and  merit. 

The  folio wiug  uiay  explain  the.  attitude  of  the  French  court  to  Colonel  Laurens: 

"Little  accustomed  to  the  usaj^e  and  manners  duo  to  the  ministers  of  a  great 
power,  Colonel  I^aurens  presented  many  demands  not  only  with  pressing-  importunity, 
hut  menace.  *  ^  *  Ife  has  neglected  me  since  I  announced  to  him  the  determina- 
tion of  the  king,  and  has  allowed  himself  to  make  complaints  and  indiscreet  remarks 
hecause  he  could  not  obtain  all  he  demanded.  I  ask  you  io  explain  the  matter  to 
Congress.  I  desire  that  such  demands  may  not  be  repeated.  It  is  painful  to  us  to 
be  put  under  the  necessity  of  refusing  assistance,  and  especially  upon  formal  appli- 
cations from  Congress;  and  it  Avill  be  well  for  you  to  liint  to  that  body  that  France 
is  not  an  inexhaustible  mine."  (Vergennes  to  Luzerne,  May  11,  1781 ;  Sparks'  MSS., 
Harvard  Collection,  vol.  32.) 

On  the  other  hand  Vergennes,  though  not  much  impressed  with  John  Laurens' tact 
when  on  an  independent  mission,  became  so  much  impressed  with  his  zeal,  his  en- 
ergy, and  his  accomiilishraents  as  to  suggest  him  as  peculiarity  qualified  for  the  post 
of  secretary  of  the  legation  at  Paris.  What  Franklin  needed — Vergennes  urged — 
was  not  a  colleague,  but*a  capable  and  high-toned  secretary,  and  this  John  Laurens 
would  have  been. 

John  Laurens'  election  as  specialminister  is  criticised  in  the  Pennsylvania  Gazette 
for  March  1«,  1781.  His  youth  and  inexperience  are  mentioned  as  objections  to  his 
being  put  in  a  position  of  such  importance.  And  as  showing  the  undue  tendency  in 
Congress  to  rely  on  young  men,  it  is  stated  that  Hamilton,  then  only  twenty-three 
years  of  age,  *'  on  the  tirst  ballotting  had  as  many  votes  as  Colonel  Laurens."  It 
was  important  to  send  a  soldier  on  this  special  mission,  the  object  of  wbich  was  to 
detail  to  the  French  Government  our  military  condition ;  and  in  the  whole  army 
there  could  not  have  been  found  men,  young  or  old,  more  competent  for  this  purpose 
than  John  Laurens  and  Hamilton.  Laurens'  distinctive  advantage  was  his  familiar- 
ity with  French,  he  having  been  in  part  educated  in  France. 

Of  John  Laurens  Washington  said  :  "  He  \\hd  not  a  fnult  that  1  could  discover,  unless 
it  were  intrepidity  bordering  on  rashness."  He  was  in  every  battle  in  which  Wasli- 
iugtou  was  engaged  after  the  battle  of  Brandy  wine;  was  severely  wounded  in  the 
attack  on  Chew's  house  at  Germantown,  and  afterwards  at  Cossawntchie,  in  South 
Carolina.  At  Yorktown  he  commanded  in  the  capture  of  one  of  the  two  redoubts 
that  were  stormed. 

A  life  of  John  Laurens,  by  W.  Gilmore  Simms,  is  given,  with  a  portion  of  his  cor- 
respondence, in  the  seventh  volume  of  the  i>ublications  of  the  liradford  Club,  New 
York,  18G7.  A  letter  of  his,  giving  some  idea  of  his  literary  skill,  is  given  tnfva,  ^  178. 
For  letters  to  and  from  him,  see  index,  title  J.  Laurens. 


*■  See  index,  title  J.  Laurens,  where  reference  is  made  to  his  instructions,  to  his 
dispatches,  and  to  the  views  of  his  mission  expressed  by  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Ver- 
gennes. Of  .J.  Laurens'  literary  ability  we  have  a  specimen  in  his  paraphrase  of 
Izard's  letter  denouncing  Franklin,  given  infra,  ^  178. 

585 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

WILLIAM  LEE—IZARD. 

William  Leo's  Ensii«i>  asso-        §  175.  Williaui  Lee,  a  brother  of  Arthur,  was 

ill  Loiuion  in  a  business  capacity  in  1775,  and 
being  then  a  British  subject,  was  elected  on  the  Wilkes  ticket  as  an 
alderman  of  the  city  of  London.  What  was  the  character  of  the  Wilkes 
party  and  what  was  the  influence  of  Wilkes  on  his  partisans  has  been 
already  considered.*  It  is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  William  Lee  was 
one  of  the  extremest  of  these  partisans.  Thus  in  June,  177G,  at  a  meet- 
ing of  the  aldermen  of  London,  who  were  almost  all  of  them  liberals, 
William  Lee,  on  a  motion  to  set  asitle,  in  favor  of  W' ilkes,  the  election 
of  Hopkins  as  chamberlain,  was  in  a  minority  of  two  against  eleven, 
taking  a  position  which  was  on  its  face  preposterous.!  In  the  speech 
made  by  Wilkes  at  this  meeting,  while  strong  sympathy  was  expressed 
for  America,  yet  the  attitude  of  loyalty  to  the  British  crown  was  main- 
tained, and  it  was  one  of  the  objections  made  to  William  Lee,  in  the 
discussions  in  Philadelphia  in  1777  and  1778,  that  as  late  as  1778,  while 
holding  office  under  Congress,  he  at  least  retained  the  formal  allegiance 
involved  in  holding  public  office  in  England. 

lu  tbo  London  Chronicle  for  December  22-24,  1778,  is  given  a  letter  from  *•  Alderman 
Lee,"  dated  Franlcfort,  October  14,  1778,  '*  exprrssing  the  impossibility  of  his  attend- 
ing to  the  duties  of  alderman  in  the  present  lamentable  situation  of  atfairs  and  his 
readiness  to  resign  his  gown  whenever  it  may  be  agreeable  to  his  constituents," 
stating  also  that  he  is  ''no  stranger  to  the  many  aspersions  \vhich  have  been  cast 
upon  me."  A  resolution  was  passed  that, ''  as  there  are  no  well-grounded  expecta- 
tions of  his  early  return  to  this  kingdom,  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  wardmote  that  he 
be  requested  to  resign  the  office  of  alderman." 

On  January  19,  1780,  his  resignation  was  received,  and  the  next  day  appointed  for 
filling  the  vacancy.     (Loudon  Chronicle  for  1780,  I,  71.) 

His  commercial  appoint-        ^  \iQ^  TJie  coiiflict  as  to  William  Lcc's  right  to  take 

meets.  ^ 

into  his  own  hands  the  entire  control  of  the  business 
affairs,  naval  as  well  as  commercial,  of  the  United  States  in  French 
ports  has  been  already  noted,  and  the  advantage  as  well  as  the  disad- 
vantage to  him  of  his  powerful  family  connections  has  been  referred  to.J 
It  has  also  been  seen  that,  in  the  opinion  of  Jay,  the  underlying  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  putting  our  marine  affairs  on  a  solid  basis  was  the  deter- 

*  Supra,  ^  138,  139.  t  See  19  Annual  Register,  154.  t  Supra,  $  153. 

586 


CHAP.  XVI.] 


WILLIAM    LEE IZARD. 


[§  176. 


inination  of  this  powerful  connection,  with  its  allies,  not  to  permit  Will- 
iam Lee  to  be  disturbed  in  his  commercial  agency  of  so  great  influence 
and  emolument.*  Acc^ording  to  Sparks, f  his  hold  on  tlie  commercial 
agency  arose  as  follows : 

^'At  the  ])C5«;iniHng  of  the  year  1777  the  commercial  concerns  of  the  United  States 
in  France,  particnhirly  at  the  port  of  Nantes,  became  important.  For  varions  reasons 
tliey  were  not  well  managed  in  the  hands  of  the  first  agent,  Mr.  Morris,  and  the  com- 
mittee of  secret  correspondence  appointed  Mr.  William  Leo  as  a  joint  commercial 
agent.  Ho  vtas  informed  of  this  appointment  in  April  by  a  letter  received  in  London 
from  Mr.  Deano.  Being  detained  by  his  private  affairs,  he  did  not  arrive  in  Paris  till 
Jnne  11.  Here  he  found  no  commission  to  act  as  commercial  agent,  nor  any  other 
notice  of  his  appointment  than  what  had  been  commnnicated  to  Mr.  Deane  in  a  letter 
from  the  committee  of  Congress.  Not  deeming  it  expedient  to  act  upon  this  authority 
alone,  he  remained  in  Paris  till  August  2,  when,  by  the  recommendation  of  Dr. 
Franklin  and  Mr.  Deane,  he  repaired  to  Nantes.  The  disagreements  between  the 
agents  there  had  brought  the  public  business  into  disorder,  which  Mr.  Leo  was 
desired  to  use  his  intluence  in  correcting.  He  stayed  in  Nantes  two  months,  and 
then  returnedto  Paris,  not  yet  having  received  any  formal  commission  as  commercial 
agent." 

But  while  the  commercial  agency,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term 
was  thus  in  abeyance,  it  became  necessary  for  Franklin  and  his  fellow 
commissioners  at  Paris  to  take  action  as  to  the  naval  interests  of  the 
United  States  in  French  ports,  such  interests  being  consigned  to  the 
control  of  the  commissioners.  The  privateers  of  the  United  States  in 
particular,  shut  out  by  blockade  from  their  own  ports,  sought  French 
ports  for  outfit  and  for  the  sale  of  prizes,  and  innumerable  as  well  as 
important  were  the  questions  thus  arising,  covering  sometimes  the  dis- 
position of  large  sums  of  money.  In  July,  1777,  William  Lee's  commis- 
sion not  having  arrived,  and  Thomas  Morris,  who  had  been  appoifited 
joint  commissioner,  proving  incompetent,  Franklin  and  Deane,  having 
authority  over  the  naval  department  of  our  afftiirs  in  France,  appointed 
Jonathan  Williams  to  the  charge  of  that  department.  The  propositions 
made  to  him  by  William  Lee  for  a  partnership  in  that  department,  and 
his  removal  and  the  appointment  of  William  Lee  in  his  place,  are  here- 
after noticed.!  It  is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  William  Lee  had  for  a 
time  the  entire  control  of  the  commercial  interests  of  the  United  States 
in  France,  employing  his  nephew  as  clerk,  and  a  foreign  firm,  Schweig- 
hauser  &  Co.,  as  his  agents.  The  arrangement  wns  far  from  being 
economical, §  but  the  question  of  its  maintenance  was,  as  we  have 
seen,  one  by  which  the  policy  of  Congress  in  foreign  aff'airs  was  largely 
affected.  It  was,  according  to  Jay,  the  desire  to  retain  William  Lee  in 
his  post  that  was  one  of  the  motives  of  the  strong  opposition  in  Con- 
gress both  to  Franklin  and  to  the  establishment  of  an  indei)endent  de- 
partment of  foreign  aff'airs. 


*  Supra,  '^  15G. 

t  1  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  589. 

t  Infra,  ^  187. 


$  See  infra,  '^  187  ;  index,  title  William 
Lee,  Franklin,  Schweighanser. 

587 


§  177.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVI. 

His  diplomatic  positions.         §  177.  gparks*  tluis  iiarrates  the  diplomatic  an- 
nals of  William  Lee: 

''Meantime,  ou  the  9th  of  May,  Mr.  William  Leo  bad  been  elected  by  Congress  a 
commissioner  to  tbe  conrts  of  Vienna  and  Berlin.  His  commission  and  instrnctions 
were  waiting  for  liim  in  Paris  on  bis  arrival,  October  G.  Tbe  commission  was  dated 
July  1,  and  gave  bim  'full  power  and  authority  to  communicate  and  treat  with  bis 
imperial  majesty  tbe  emperor  of  Germany,  or  witb  sucb  person  or  persons  as  sball  be 
by  bim  for  such  purpose  authorized,  of  and  upon  a  true  and  sincere  friendship,  and  a 
firm,  inviolable,  and  universal  peace,  for  the  defense,  protection,  and  safety  of  tbe 
navigation  and  mutual  commerce  of  the  subjects  of  his  imperial  majesty  and  tbe  peo- 
ple of  tbe  United  States.'  He  bad  a  separate  commission  to  tbe  court  of  Berlin, 
worded  in  the  same  manner. 

"The  state  of  things  at  that  time  in  Europe  was  not  such  as  to  warrant  Mr.  Lee  in 
rendering  himself  at  either  of  tbe  courts  of  Vienna  or  Berlin.  Ho  remained  nearly  a 
year  iu  Paris,  waiting  the  issue  of  events.  At  length  he  went  to  Frankfort,  in  Ger- 
many, where  he  took  up  his  residence,  as  a  point  convenient  for  bis  operations,  till 
the  time  should  arrive  for  some  decided  step  with  reference  to  the  main  object  iu  his 
mission.  On  tlie  4th  of  September,  1778,  he  agreed  to  a  plan  of  a  treaty  between  The 
Netherlands  and  tbe  United  States.  Tbis  was  done  at  Aix-la  Cbapelle,  where  he  met 
M.  de  Nenfvillc,  the  Dutch  agent.  But  as  M.  de  Neufville  acted  only  in  his  private 
capacity,  tbis  treaty  was  never  ratified  or  matured. 

''In  March,  1779,  Mr.  Lee  was  in  Paris,  endeavoring  to  engage  tbe  French  ministry 
to  aid  him  in  advancing  his  views  in  Germatry.  Failing  iu  this  purpose,  he  returned 
again  to  Frankfort,  where  be  continued  to  reside  during  the  reuiainder  of  his  mis- 
sion. He  was  recalled  by  a  resolution  of  Congress,  dated  June  9,  1779,  but  not  re- 
quired to  come  to  the  United  States.  Towards  tbe  end  of  tbe  year  he  retired  to 
Brussels,  where  he  continued  to  live  with  his  family  for  some  time  afterwards." 

Of  William  Lee's  fruitless  essays  at  recognition  by  the  courts  to  which 
he  was  commissioned  the  following*  correspondence  gives  full  details, 
and  it  will  be  seen  that  so  far  as  Prussia  was  concerned  these  efforts 
were  brought  to  an  end  by  a  summary  repulse  by  Frederick  the  Great 
to  which  tlie  United  States  ought  never  to  have  been  exposed,  t  With 
Franklin  his  relations  were  embittered  by  the  fact  that  Franklin  not 
only  disapproved  of  his  course  in  the  commercial  agency,  but  held 
that  while  filling  this  agency",  and  while  without  any  diplomatic  posi- 
tion whatever  at  the  courts  of  Vienna  and  Berlin,  he  was  not  entitled 
to  a  salary  as  resident  minister  at  eitlier  of  those  courts. |  His  last 
appeal  for  diplomatic  employment  was  in  a  letter  to  the  secretary 
of  foreign  affairs,  dated  at  Brussels,  March  31,  1782,  in  which  he  sayS; 

"It  has  been  mentioned  to  me  by  a  gentleman  in  tbe  government  here  that  the 
emperor  is  disposed  to  enter  into  a  commercial  treaty  with  America,  and  afterwards 
that  a  minister  or  resident  from  Congress  should  reside  at  court  here,  this  being  the 
principal  commercial  country  belonging  to  his  majesty.  Though  this  communica- 
tion was  not  official,  yet  it  appears  as  if  it  had  been  made  to  me  from  their  knowing 
that  I  was  formerly  a  commissioner  of  Congress  at  the  court  of  Vienna  ;  therefore  I 

*1  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.  589. 

t  See  supra,  $^  19,  144  ;  and  also  index,  title  William  Lee,  Arthur  Lee.  As  to  Will- 
iam Lee's  proposal  tbat  he  should  be  sent  as  minister  to  The  Hague,  see  supra,  $  12G. 

I  See  Franklin  to  committee.  May  26,  1779,  and  other  papers  referred  to  in  index 
under  title  of  Franklin  and  W^illiani  Lee. 

588 


CHAP.  XVl]  WILLIAM    LEE IZARD.  [§  178. 

tliiuk  it  my  duty  io  iiifonn  LV)ni;ross  of  the  circumstauceB  througli  yon,  that  iliey  may 
take  sucli  measures  in  it  as  they  thiuk  proper." 

He  proceeds  to  say  that  "  iu  my  opinion  15,000  livn^s  tonrnois  per  annum  wonhl  he 
a  sufficient  appointment  for  an  American  minister  to  reside  at  this  court,  for  his 
sahiry  and  expenses  together." 

But  Livingston  did  not  accept  this  suggestion,  nor  as  far  as  the 
records  show  make  any  reply  to  the  oiler.  And,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
emi)er()r  had  given  emphatic  signs  that  he  did  not  then  desire  to  have 
an  Ajuerican  minister  residing  in  his  realm. 

Sparks,  in  an  article  in  the  North  American  Review  of  April,  1830  (vol.  30,  p.  403), 
points  out  a  series  of  mistakes  made  as  to  William  Lee  hy  the  biographer  of  Arthur 
Lee.  He  shows  that  William  Lee  never  acted  as  United  States  agent  at  Holland; 
that  he  did  not  leave  Paris  for  Berlin  until  several  weeks  after  Arthur  Lee's  return  ; 
and  that  he  remained  in  London  until  June,  1777,  acting  as  alderman  ;  as  to  each  of 
which  points  the  biographer  is  mistaken. 

Of  William  Lee  Hutciiinson  thus  writes: 

*^  January  20,  1760 — Mauduit  called  in  the  evening  ;  conversation  upon  Lee,  one  of 
the  aldermen,  who  has  been  near  two  years  abroad,  employed  at  different  courts,  en- 
gaged in  behalf  of  revolted  America,  and  yet  he  has  continued  alderman  until  a  few 
days  ago  he  sent  his  resignation."     (2  Hutchinson's  Diary,  327.) 

A  curious  episode  iu  William  Lee's  history  is  given  in  derail  iu  the  Lee  papers  in 
the  University  of  Virginia.  It  seems  that  *'Petrie,"  an  American  living  in  Paris  iu 
1778,  reported  that  advance  news  of  the  signature  of  the  treaty  of  alliance  was  for- 
warded by  "Alderman  "  Lee  to  London  for  the  use  of  his  business  friends.  It  so  hap- 
j)ened,  as  we  will  see,  that  the  Lees  had  denounced  Bancroft  for,  as  they  said,  making 
similar  use  of  the  same  information.  They  were  therefore  peculiarly  indignant  at 
the  aspersion  ;  and  William  Lee  at  once  wrote  to  Petrie  for  his  authority.  This 
Petrie  refused  to  give.  On  May  26  William  Lee  repeated  the  demand.  On  May  28 
Petrie  asked  for  delay  on  account  of  ill-health,  which  precluded  him  for  the  time 
from  correspondence.  The  demand,  however,  was  renewed  a  few  days  afterwards, 
when  Petrie  finally  stated  that  he  would  neither  retract  nor  apologize.  Thereon 
William  Lee,  on  July  24,  1779,  challenged  Petrie  to  the  "  field  of  bono-."  Petrie  ac- 
cepted the  challenge,  seconds  were  provided,  but  much  discussion  arose  as  to  the  proper 
place  of  action.  Finally,  after  one  or  two  balks,  Valenciennes  was  agreed  on  and  an 
hour  fixed  for  the  encounter.  William  Lee,  however,  was  kept  back  by  an  accident 
to  his  horses.  Another  meeting  was  appointed  from  which  Petrie  was  kept  back  by 
his  carriage  breaking  down.  This  excuse  William  Lee  thought  was  frivolous;  but 
no  third  meeting  was  called  for  nor  was  there  any  retraction  by  Petrie.  The  truth  is 
that  the  charge  against  William  Lee  of  using  the  news  for  stock  jobbing,  like  the 
similar  charge  against  Bancroft,  could  not  be  substantiated,  for  the  reason  that  Frank- 
lin took  the  first  opportunity,  for  political  purposes,  of  advising  his  whig  friends  in 
England  of  the  signature.* 

Izard's  diplomatic  position.       ^  173.  Kalph  Izard,  of  8outh  Carolina,  as  he  tells 

us  in  one  of  his  letters,  was  a  gentleman  of  fortune, 
who  had  been  living  in  England  from  1771  to  the  breaking  out  of  the 
war,  when  he  removed  to  Paris.  On  July  1,  1777,  he  was  appointed  as 
minister  to  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany,  he  being  one  of  the  ministers 
whom  Congress  then  commissioned  to  various  European  courts  without 
any  prior  understanding  as  to  their  reception.!    Of  all  this  line  of  en- 


See  infra,  ^  196.  t  Supra,  U  Wff,  U  106/. 

589 


§178.]  DIPLOMATIC    COHRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVI. 

voys,  iiDSuccessful  as  they  were,  Izard  was  the  one  who  made  the  least 
l)rogress  towards  his  destiuatioii.  In  fact  he  never  left  Paris  until 
Congress  terminated  his  mission  on  June  8,  1779.  He  was,  however, 
far  from  being  inactive  when  in  Paris  in  matters  diplomatic  and  undip- 
lomatic. His  correspondence,  which  api)ears  at  large  in  the  following 
volumes,*  shows  that  he  was  occupied,  when  in  Paris  in  lively  and 
bitter  controversies,  as  follows  :  First,  as  a  diplomatic  representative  of 
the  United  States  in  Paris  he  claimed  the  right  to  take  part  in  the  con- 
sultations with  the  French  court  of  the  ministers  commissioned  to  that 
court ;  and  on  this  right  not  being  conceded  to  him  he  addressed  Frank- 
lin notes  almost  unexampled  in  literature  for  their  prolix  vituperation, 
which  notes  he  backed  up  by  denunciations  in  the  same  line  addressed 
to  Congress  and  to  Vergennes.  Second,  he  insisted  on  certain  exemp- 
tions of  his  goods  from  duties,  in  which  he  did  not  succeed,  but  which 
led  to  an  annoying  discussion,  into  which  the  ministers  to  the  French 
'  court  were  dragged.  Third,  he  insisted  on  being  paid,  out  of  funds  col- 
lected by  Franklin  in  France,  a  salary  for  his  services  as  minister  to 
Tuscany  during  the  entire  period  he  remained  in  Paris,  he  never  having 
even  visited  Tuscany.  This  claim  was  rejected  by  Franklin,  which  in 
creased  the  alienation  between  them.f  With  Arthur  Lee  he  was  on 
intimate  terms ;  and  in  some  points  he  was  sustained  by  Adams,  who, 
however,  said  that  *'  his  passions  are  always  strong,  often  violent," 
that  he  was  without  "  experience  in  public  life,"  and  that  he  ought ''  to 
have  been  in  Italy  ;"|  and  Adams  was  forced  to  deny  the  accuracy  of 
statements  imputed  to  him  by  Izard  as  the  "peevish  ebullition  of  the 
rashness  of  his  temper."  § 

How  far  Franklin  could  have  avoided  the  rupture  with  Izard,  mortify- 
ing and  annoying  as  it  was,  has  been  already  considered.  ||  Perhaps  the 
best  apology  for  Franklin  will  be  found  in  Izard's  letters  as  they  appear 
in  the  following  images.* 

The  following,  from  Moore's  Materials  for  History,  is  a  parody,  not 
without  force,  on  Izard's  letter  to  Henrj^  Lauren's  denouncing  Franklin : 

B.  I.,  esq.  to  H.  L.,  esq. 

"A  liberal  and  just  translation  of  the  letters  of  ii.  I.,  esq.,  to  his  excellency  H.  L., 
esq.,  done  for  the  benefit  of  those  Americans  who  are  ignorant  of  the  language  in 
which  they  were  written."  H 

''Paris,  1778. 

"  Dear  Sir  :  I  write  this  to  you  and  desire  you  to  communicate  it  to  my  countrymen 
in  Congress,  who,  I  hope,  will  exert  themselves  in  my  favor.  If  you  and  they  are 
satisfied  that  my  former  letters  have  made  the  impressions  that  I  wish,  you  will  then 
te  so  good  as  to  lay  this  before  Congress;  if,  on  the  contrary,  you  think  their  minds 
are  not  properly  prepared,  you  will  withhold  it,  as  I  do  not  wish  it  publicly  known 


*See  index,  title  Izard.  §  Adams  to  Lovell,  Oct.  17,  1779,  infra. 

t  As  to  rightfulness  of  claim,  see  siqjra,  \\  Siqrra,  §^^  1*26,  149. 

^  108.  1[[Thi8  "translation"  is  in  thehandwrit- 

t  Adams  to  Lovell,  Feb.  20,  1779.  ing  of  Col.  John  Laurens. 

590 


CHAP.  XVI.]  WILLIAM    LEL — IZAKD.  [§  178. 

till  it  is  likely  to  produce  the  desired  eftect.  My  situation  here  is  very  toruientiug; 
1  have  received  two  thousand  Louis  d'ors  of  the  public  money,  as  I  informed  you  in 
my  letter  of  ,  aud  have  done  nothinj^  in  my  proper  department ;  but  my  let- 

ters will  convince  you  that  I  have  not  been  idle.  Upon  my  coming  to  this  place  I 
found  the  commissioners  at  variance;  I  wished  to  be  on  the  side  of  Franklin  and 
Deane,  but  the  former  was  too  wisB  to  be  my  dupe,  and  treated  mo  with  reserve  ;  the 
latter  too  haughty  to  be  guided  by  me,  and  treated  me  with  contempt,  which  you 
know  was  too  mortifying  for  me  to  bear.  I  therefore  had  nothing  left  but  to  cross 
the  Alps  or  fall  in  with  a  man  who  from  many  years'  acquaintance  I  knew  was  not 
accounted  the  mildest  and  best-natured  in  the  world.  1  chose  the  latter,  aud  how 
busily  I  have  been  engaged  the  present,  as  well  as  former  letters,  with  the  inclosed 
papers,  will  sufificiently  evince.  I  do  not  want  to  be  troublesome  to  my  friends  by 
soliciting  their  interest  in  my  favor,  as  it  would  be  much  more  agreeable  they  would 
take  a  hint,  and,  without  forcing  me  to  a  direct  application,  procure  me  a  post  aud 
place  more  suited  to  my  inclination  and  ambition  ;  favors  unasked  confer  a  higher 
gratification. 

'*  I  thought  I  had  spoken  plain  enough  before,  and  sufficiently  explained  my  wishes 
■when  I  told  you  I  was  willing  to  act  as  envoy  or  minister  plenipotentiary  for  Italy, 
in  which  case  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  as  many  commissions  as  courts,  so  that 
I  might  travel  in  state  from  court  to  court,  and  reside  where  I  pleased,  without  being 
confined  to  Florence  or  Leghorn  ;  at  the  same  time  I  informed  you  that  it  would  be 
still  more  agreeable  to  be  appointed  for  Versailles  until  the  British  ministry  return  to 
their  senses,  and,  by  acknowledging  our  independence,  give  an  opportunity  of  send- 
ing me  to  the  court  of  London,  which  has  ever  been  the  height  of  my  ambition,  j 
could  not  entertain  a  doubt  of  being  gratified  in  one  or  other  of  these  points,  aud  that 
my  first  excuse  for  not  crossing  the  Alps,  namely,  that  the  Tuscan  minister  had 
informed  me  his  master  did  not  wish  to  see  me,  though  he  entertained  a  good- will  for 
America,  until  France  took  a  decided  part  in  our  favor,  as  by  the  conduct  of  France 
he  means  to  regulate  his  own  ;  that  this  excuse,  I  say,  would  have  served  my  turn 
until  I  should  receive  your  answer.  Unfortunately,  France  has  come  to  a  determi- 
nation, has  signed  a  treaty  with  us,  acknowledging  our  independence,  andseut  a  fleet 
to  assist,  and  minister  to  reside  in  America;  and  still  I  am  here  without  having 
received  a  line  from  you  or  the  committee  for  forei  gn  aftairs  or  from  Congress,  and 
with  only  a  single  commission  for  the  court  of  Tuscany.  For  this  reason  I  intimated 
my  pleasure  to  you  that  you  would  oppose  the  ratification  of  the  treaties  and  set 
matters  again  afloat,  assigning  the  b  st  reasons  I  was  then  able  to  devise,  interspers- 
ing with  a  liberal  hand  as  much  personal  abuse  on  Franklin  aud  Deane,  who  had,  in 
spite  of  my  endeavor,  brought  this  matter  to  so  speedy  an  issue,  as  I  thought  was 
sufficient  at  least  to  convince  you  how  much  they  thwarted  my  views  and  how  much 
I  hated  them  ;  and  that,  therefore,  they  "ought  to  be  removed  with  disgrace  and 
infamy;  and  until  I  could  know  the  effects  of  this,  I  cast  about  for  another  reason 
for  my  not  leaving  this  place.  Luckily  the  broils  in  Germany  furnished  a  very  osten- 
sible one.  1  got  the  Tuscan  minister  to  say  that  his  master  wished  me  not  to  appear 
at  his  court  until  he  knew  what  part  the  court  of  Vienna  would  take,  as  by  the  con- 
duct of  that  court,  with  which  ho  is  so  intimately  connected,  he  must  regulate  his 
own.  Before  that  is  done  I  hope  for  your  answer,  and  that  Congress  will  gratify  me 
so  far  as  to  disgrace  Deane  and  remove  Franklin,  to  make  room  for  me  at  Versailles, 
when  I  assure  them  that  they  have  acted  very  foolishly  in  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Deane,  who  is  every  way  unqualified  for  the  trust  reposed  in  him.  It  may  be  said 
Congress  knew  him  well  before  they  trusted  him,  he  having  been  for  some  consider- 
able time  a  member  of  that  body  ;  but  I  say,  search  the  world  through,  and  a  more 
unfit  person  could  not  be  found;  and,  as  I  hope,  they  will  allovN-  me  to  be  a  better 
judge  of  men,  manners,  aud  abilities,  I  say  again  he  is  totally  unqualified  for  the  post 
he  has  filled,  and  not  to  be  trusted  in  future.  This  I  hope  is  sufficient,  but  if  not,  I 
do  assertj  naj  I  can  prove,  that  he  is  a New  England  man  ;  and  though  he  has 

591 


§179.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVI. 

sent  you  supplies  of  arms,  amumnition,  aud  clotbiug,  fitted  out  vessels,  and  without 
deigning  to  consult  my  worthy  friend  A.  Lee,  esq. — nay,  I  may  say,  has  almost  without 
him  brought  about  the  treaty,  aud  has  procured  the  fleet  aud  minister  to  be  sent  you 
without  the  knowledge  of  A.  Lee,  esq.,  or  myself, — yet  I  aflinu,  nay,  I  will  swear  if 
you  require  it,  that  he  has  sucli  a  hauteur  about  him  that  nobody  can  do  business 
with  him.  Aud  as  to  Franklin,  he  is  fi  crafty  old  knave ;  he  would  not  let  me  have 
a  copy  of  the  treaty  after  it  was  signed,  th  )ugh  he  knew  how  anxious  I  was  to  have 
it,  and  how  much  advantage  I  could  have  made  of  it.  In  my  conscience  I  believe  he 
has  neither  honor  nnr  honesty  ;  he  has  abilities,  it  is  true,  but  so  muchthe  worse  when 
they  are  not  under  the  restraint  of  virtue  aud  integrity,  and  I  declare  before  God  he 

is  under  the  restraint  of  neither ;  and  if  Congress  still  doubt  it,  I  can  get  Doctor , 

80  celebrated  iu  the   Quinzaine  d'Anglois,   who  is  as   honest  an  Irishman  as  ever 

attended  a  court  with  a  straw  in  his  shoe,  and  Mons. ,  my  two  intimate  friends, 

together  with  Thornton,  and  twenty  such  like,  to  confirm  it  by  their  oaths  also. 
But  it  will  be  said,  perhaps,  he  has  during  a  long  life  of  upwards  of  seventy  years, 
supported  a  good  character,  aud  that  his  reputation  is  established  and  liigb  through 
Europe.  I  deny  the  fact;  did  not  Wedderburne  abuse  him?  But  if  it  were  even 
80,  does  not  that  prove  what  fools  they  are  in  Europe  to  think  well  of  a  man  who 
has  treated  me  with  contempt  ?  who  refused  to  consult  me  on  the  treaties,  or  to  let 
me  have  a  copy  of  them  after  they  were  finished?  and  when  I  called  upon  him  to 
explain  his  conduct,  and  wrote  to  him  again,  again,  and  again,  and  sent  my  secretary, 
John  Julius  Pringle,  to  catechise  him  in  i^ersou,  at  last  sent  me  word,  '  Have  patience, 
aud  I  will  pay  thee  all ; '  but  I  sent  him  a  Roland  for  his  Oliver.  I  have  shown  him 
that  he  did  not  understand  the  text,  and  desired  him  to  read  over  the  whole  chap- 
ter. 

"However,  if  after  all  I  have  said  Congress  can  not  be  induced  to  dismiss  him 
wholly,  there  can  be  no  objection  to  his  being  sent  to  Vienna  ;  he  will  do  well  enough 
there,  notwithstanding  what  I  have  said  of  him,  but  he  is  not  to  be  trusted  at  Ver- 
sailles, which  is  the  place  I  have  fixed  on  for  myself,  and  you  may  tell  Congress  so. 
*'I  am,  dear  sir,  etc.,  etc." 

This  letter  is  indorsed  by  Mr.  Laurens  **No.  1  and  No.  2,  Traits  of  the  infamous 
practices  of  party  in  Congress." 

His  courae  after  his  return.       ^  179,  Accordiug  to  a  stateiueut  made  by  the 

British  authorities  in  New  York  iu  September, 
1780,*  Izard,  on  his  arrival  in  tlie  United  States  in  July,  1780,  "held 
language  that  tills  the  country  with  jealousies;  that  the  American 
agents  were  duped  by  the  cabinet  of  France,  Dr.  Franklin  superannu- 
ated, aud  all  their  agents  unfaithful  and  despised  except  the  Lees. 
*  *  *  He  assured  Parsons  that  France  neither  could  nor  would  give 
the  help  requisite  to  establish  the  independence  of  America." 

Samuel  Parsons,  it  was  said,  was  so  much  affected  by  this  conversa- 
tion that  immediately  after  Mr.  Izard  was  gone  he  wrote  to  General 
Greene,  at  the  camp  at  New  Jersey,  beseeching  him  if  possible  to  check 
Mr.  Izard,  from  the  dangerous  tendency  of  his  information  upon  the 
the  people  at  large.  But  like  similar  statements  issuing  during  the 
war  from  British  authorities,  this  is  to  be  taken  with  great  allowance. 
Izard,  however,  no  doubt  continued  after  his  return  this  expression  of 
animosity  to  Franklin,  t 


8  Brodhead's  N.  Y.  Col.  Docs.,  804.  t  See  supra,  ^  154. 

592 


CHAP.  XVI.]  WILLIAM    LEE IZARD.  [§179. 

He  took  early  occasion  oq  bis  return  to  announce  to  Richard  11.  Lee 
his  concurrence  in  the  movement  for  Franklin's  disgrace: 

"  I  .'un  ])ortV('tly  of  yow  opinion,  lliat  tlio  politiciil  siilvatiou  of  America  depeiulH 
upon  the  recalling  of  Dr.  Franklin.''  (Izard  to  K.  H.  Lee,  October  15,  1760 ;  2S  South. 
Lit.  Mess.,  190.) 

It  is  by  this  alliance  between  Izard  and  the  Lees  and  Adamses  that 
we  can  understand  why  it  wad  that  the  majority  of  the  Soutli  Carolina 
delegation  united  with  Kichard  Henry  Lee  and  tlie  Massachusetts  dele- 
gation in  maintaining  that  Fraiddin  would  sacrifice  the  lisheries  unless 
removed. 

Izard,  as  we  learn  from  Luzerne,  insisted  in  Congress  that  if  Frardilin 
was  recalled  France  might  be  com[)elled  to  give  to  Congress  whatever 
it  required. 

It  should  be  remembered,  as  extenuating  Izard's  bitterness,  that  not 
only  did  he  attribute  his  diplomatic  failure  to  Franklin  and  to  France, 
but  that  he  w^as  very  much  tried  by  the  breaking  up  of  his  family  rela- 
tions by  the  war.  He  was  closely  connected  with  the  Delancey  family 
in  Kew  York,  who  finally  took  the  tory  side.  And  according  to  a  note 
to  8  Brodhead's  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  174,  on«'  of  his  daughters 
married  Lord  William  ('ampbell,  youngest  son  of  the  fourth  Duke  of 
Argyle,  and  royal  governor  of  South  Carolina  in  1775. 

Of  Izard's  devotion  to  American  independence  after  the  war  set  in 
there  can  be  no  question.  In  1780,  w^hen  he  returned  to  the  United 
States,  he  j)ledged  his  entire  estate  for  the  raising  of  funds  for  the  build- 
ing of  ships  of  war  for  the  Confederacy;  and  he  was  largely  instru- 
mental in  obtaining  the  services  of  General  Greene  in  the  southern 
army.  He  was  elected  to  the  Continental  Congress  in  1781,  and  on 
the  adoption  of  the  federal  Constitution  was  chosen  a  Senator  from 
South  Carolina.     He  died  in  May,  1804.* 


*  See  a  memoir  by  his  daughter,  with  a  portion  of  his  correspondence,  of  which  the 
first  volume  was  published  in  1844. 

38  WH  593 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

LIVINGSTON— MOBBIS. 

Livingston's  political  career.  ^  igQ.  Eobert  R.  Livingstoii  was  bom  on  No- 
vember 27, 1746,  aud  after  studying  law  with  his 
kiDsmaii  William  Liviugston  begau  the  practice  of  the  profession  in 
New  York  in  partnership  with  John  Jay.  Appointed  by  Governor 
Trj'on  to  the  recordership  of  New  York  in  1773,  Livingston  was  in  1775 
dismissed  from  that  post  in  consequence  of  his  revolutionary  affili- 
ations. Sent  in  1775  to  the  Continental  Congress,  he  was  one  of  the 
committee  of  five  which  drafted  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which, 
however,  he  was  prevented  from  signing  by  the  necessity  of  his  attend- 
ance at  the  provincial  convention  of  New  York,  which  body,  in  part 
through  his  exertions,  declared,  on  July  8,  its  independence  as  a  ^'  State." 
In  1777  he  was  appointed  chancellor  of  New  York,  which  office  he  held 
until  1801,  being  a  delegate  also  to  the  Continental  Congress  until 
1777,  and  again  in  1779  and  1781.  His  election  as  secretary  of  foreign 
affairs,  and  his  services  in  that  post,  will  be  presently  noticed.  As 
chairman  of  the  New  York  convention  to  consider  the  federal  Consti- 
tution he  was  hirgely  instrumental  in  inducing  its  adoption  in  New 
York.  Declining  the  mission  to  France,  offered  to  him  b}^  Washington 
in  1794,  lie  accepted  it  in  1801  from  Jefferson,  his  term  as  chan- 
cellor then  expiring,  and  by  him,  with  Monroe,  the  convention  for  the 
l)urchase  of  Louisiana  was  negotiated.  His  services,  after  his  retire- 
ment from  his  mission  in  1805,  were  employed  equally  beneficially  in 
the  advance  of  the  agricultural  interests  of  New  York,  and  in  the  in- 
troduction, in  concert  with  Fulton,  of  steam  navigation.  He  died  at 
Clermont,  his  family  seat  and  the  place  of  his  birth,  on  February  26, 
1813. 

His  attitude  as  to  congres-        §  igi.  The  couflicts  in  Congpcss  whicli  preceded 

sional  parties.  "^  o  i 

Livingston's  appointment  have  been  already  no- 
ticed,* and  it  has  been  seen  that  Livingston  took  a  leading  position  in 
that  school  of  revolutionary  statesmen  which  held  that  the  true  policy 
of  Congress  should  be  not  merely  to  overthrow  the  British  supremacy, 
but  to  establish  a  stable  and  at  the  same  time  liberal  system  in  its 
place,  t    It  has  also  been  seen  that  the  policy  of  what  has  been  called 

*  Supra,  ^^Ibff.  t  Supra,  $  4. 

594 


CHAP.  XVII.]  LIVINGSTON — MORRIS.  [§  181. 

the  purely  "  liberative"  or  "•  expulsive"  school  was  to  keep  the  direction 
of  the  Revolution,  both  as  to  domestic  and  as  to  foreign  affairs,  in  the 
hands  of  Congress,  acting  through  committees  under  its  immediate 
direction  ;  and  that  it  was  maintained  by  this  school  of  politicians  that 
in  matters  diplomatic  as  well  as  matters  financial  and  matters  military, 
the  "  militia"  impulses  of  the  people  should  be  relied  on,  without  ham- 
pering them  by  subordinating  them  to  artificial  and  effete  rules  not 
suited  to  a  young  republic.  It  has  also  been  seen  that  in  military 
matters  this  school  was  more  or  less  engaged  in  thwarting  Washing- 
ton;* that  in  financial  matters,  in  its  recklessness  in  seizing  any 
agency  it  could  get  hold  of,  it  had  resorted  to  an  unlimited  issue  of 
paper  money  and  of  drafts  on  Europe  without  funds,  thereby,  in  defiance 
of  the  counsels  of  Washington,  of  Franklin,  and  of  Morris,  exposing  the 
credit  of  the  country  to  ruin  ;  and  that,  in  addition  to  the  aid  it  obtained 
from  enthusiasts  who  believed  that  any  means  to  effect  their  immediate 
purpose  ought  to  be  seized,  and  from  speculators  who  were  interested 
in  inflating  the  currency,  they  were  supported  by  a  powerful  combina- 
tion of  statesmen  who  for  various  reasons  were  averse  to  taking  from 
Congress  the  absolute  control  of  our  affairs,  domestic  and  foreign,  t 

But  the  critical  position  of  our  foreign  relations,  together  with  a 
reaction  against  the  influences  above  specified,  led  to  a  determination, 
in  January,  1781,  to  establish  a  department  of  foreign  affairs,  under  the 
control  of  a  responsible  secretary.  It  was  not,  however,  until  August 
10,  1781,  that  Robert  R.  Livingston  was  elected  to  this  post  by  a  vote 
of  six  States  to  three  for  Arthur  Lee.  The  character  of  the  opposition 
to  him  is  thus  stated  in  the  following  letter  from  Arthur  Lee  to  Samuel 
Adams,  dated  Philadelphia,  August  13,  1781 : 

'^Tbis  choice,"  that  of  Livingston  as  secretary  for  foreign  affairs,  "is,  I  think,  a 
very  serious  thing  for  the  eastern  States,  and  indeed  for  them  all.  For  I  can  assure 
you  that  something  passed  during  the  negotiation  of  the  treaty  which  convinced  me 
there  are  deep  designs  against  the  fishery.  Dr.  Fraukliu,  we  all  know,  is  devoted  to 
these  designs.  Mr.  Jay  and  Chancellor  Livingston  are  both  enemies  to  the  eastern 
States."  t 

We  see,  then,  that  the  opposition  to  Livingston  and  the  support  of 
Arthur  Lee  were  rested  in  the  canv^ass,  so  far  as  the  appeals  to  New 
England  were  concerned,  on  the  supposed  opposition  of  Livingston 
and  Franklin  to  the  fisheries.  But  this  statement  was  ntterly  without 
foundation.  The  ablest  as  well  as  the  boldest  argument  sent  during  the 
Revolution  from  this  side  of  the  water  to  sustain  our  fishery  claims  was 
issued  by  Livingston.  And  it  w^as  to  Franklin's  vigorous  maintenance 
of  these  claims  at  the  peace  conferences  that  their  admission  by  Great 
Britain  w^as  eminently  due.  §     The  appeal  to  New  England,  however, 

"  Supra,  $$11,  146,  153. 
\  Supra,  U  156,  176,  177. 

t  Bancroft  MSS. ;  see  further  supra,  $  146,  for  a  letter  of  Arthur  Lee  to  Dana 
attacking  Livingston. 

$  See  infra,  title  Fisheries,  Franklin. 

595 


§  182.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVII. 

made  by  Arthiu*  Lee,  on  behalf  of  the  fisheries,  uDfouuded  as  it  was, 
was  joined  in  by  Izard,  both  basing  it  on  their  supposed  knowledge  of 
Franklin^s  opposition  to  these  cherished  New  England  interests;  and 
it  was  through  this,  as  well  as  through  other  influences,  that  the  strong 
vote  against  Livingston  was  secured. 

His  policy  as  secretary.  ^  igo.  Liviugstou,  though  a  uiuch  youugcr  man 
than  Franklin,  possessed,  in  his  dispassionateness 
and  his  many  sidedness,  not  a  few  of  Franklin's  characteristics.  From 
his  prior  administrative  experience  as  royalist  recorder  of  New  York 
he  had  at  least  some  acquaintance  with  practical  government  in 
America;  his  thorough  studies  as  a  scholar  and  jurist  gave  him  a  knowl- 
edge of  administrative  politics  in  other  spheres.  As  secretary  of  for. 
eign  affairs  in  1781-1783,  he  did  more  than  any  one  in  the  home  gov- 
ernment in  shaping  its  foreign  policy.  But  the  system  he  indicated 
was,  as  will  be  seen,  not  the  ^'militia"  system  of  unsophisticated  im- 
pulse, but  that  which  the  law  of  nations  had  at  the  time  sanctioned  as 
the  best  mode  of  conducting  international  affairs.  His  course  as  sec- 
retary was  based  on  the  law  of  nations  as  thus  understood  by  him. 
He  at  once  accepted  Franklin's  position — that  it  was  unwise,  as  well 
as  against  international  usage,  for  the  United  States  to  send  ministers 
to  foreign  courts  without  some  intimation  that  they  would  be  received. 
He  saw  that  from  the  nature  of  things  the  then  neutral  courts  of 
Europe  would  not  throw  away  the  advantages  of  their  neutrality  by 
entering  into  an  alliance  with  the  United  States,  which,  as  a  revolution- 
ary republic,  they,  as  absolutists,  could  have  no  desire  to  encourage. 
He  therefore  advised  the  recall  of  Dana,  and  he  op])osed  any  further 
efforts  being  made  to  send  ministers  to  European  courts  by  whom  such 
missions  were  not  invited.  Acting  also  on  the  princiide  that  a  minister 
to  a  foreign  court  must  be  a  persona  grata^  and  aware  of  Franklin's 
transcendent  gifts  as  a  negotiator,  as  well  as  of  his  great  acceptability 
to  France,  to  Franklin  he  gave  his  unwavering  support.  Of  the  unre- 
lenting animosity  to  America  of  the  British  Government  he,  as  well 
as  his  relative  and  friend  Jay,  to  whom  he  was  strongi^^  attached, 
made  no  question  ;  and  no  i^art  of  his  diplomatic  work  was  more  labored 
than  that  which  comprised  his  eftbrts  to  collect  materials,  based  on  the 
cruelties  of  the  war,  to  show  that  no  settlement  which  did  not  admit 
independence  was  practicable.  The  alliance  with  France  he  considered 
sacred,  France  having  performed  faithfully  her  engagements  to  us,  and 
we  being  bound  to  perform  faithfully  our  engagements  to  her  j  and  for 
this  reason  he  disapproved  of  the  action  of  the  peace  commissioners  in 
negotiating  with  England  without  concert  with  France,  Of  his  policy 
his  very  able  papers,  contained  in  the  following  volumes,  are  the  best 
vindication.* 
It  may  be  here  added  that  while  adhering  to  the  ''constructive"  or 


*  See  au  analysis  of  them  io  index,  title  Livingston. 
596 


CHAP.  XVIl]  LIVINGSTON MORRIS.  [§1^3 

merely  "expulsive"  or  'Miberative,"  be  belonged  to  tbe  liberal  wing  of 
constructioiiism.  He  wanted,  it  is  true,  not  simply  to  abolisb  tbe  Biitisb 
system,  but  to  establisli  a  better  system  in  its  place.  But  tbe  new  sys- 
tem be  strov^e  for,  and  wliicb  be  was  instrumental  in  introducing,  was 
to  be  a  system  of  liberalism,  construing  tbe  Constitution  oi'  tbe  United 
States,  wbicb  be  advocated,  on  all  doubtful  points  in  favor  of  tbat  view 
wbicb  leaves  to  government  only  sucb  i)0wer  as  tbe  people  can  not  exer- 
cise for  tbemselves. 

Tbe  following  extract  from  a  letter,  beretofore  unpublisbed,  of  Feb- 
ruary 18,  1782,  from  Livingston  to  Harrison,  governor  of  Virginia,  illus- 
trates Livingston's  adbesion  to  dipbjmacy  as  a  system : 

"  I  do  myself  tlio  honor  to  trnnstnit  your  excellency  several  resolntions  of  Congress 
which,  having  a  reference  to  the  department  of  foreign  affairs,  arc  in  course  to  go 
through  this  office.  The  necessity  of  carrying  them  into  effect  is  too  obvious  to  need 
observations.  While  we  hokl  an  intercourse  with  civilized  nations  we  must  conform 
to  laws  which  humanity  has  established  and  which  custom  has  consecrated  among 
them.  On  this  the  rights  which  the  United  States  or  their  citizens  may  claim  in 
foreign  countries  must  bo  fouiuled.  The  resolution  (No.  2)  passed  Congress  in  conse- 
quence of  a  convention  about  to  be  concluded  between  his  most  christian  majesty  and 
the  United  States  of  America,  which  affords  an  acblitional  reason  for  paying  it  the 
eailiest  attention.  Your  excellency  and  the  legislature  will  see  the  propriety  of 
rendering  the  laws  on  these  subjects  as  simple  and  the  execution  of  them  as  expedi- 
tious as  possible,  since  foreigners,  who  are  the  great  object  of  them,  are  easily  dis- 
gusted at  complex  systems  which  they  find  a  diflicnlty  in  understamling,  and  the 
honor  and  peace  of  a  nation  are  frequently  as  much  wounded  by  delay  as  by  a  denial 
ofjustice." 

For  the  above  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Dreer,  of  Philadelphia. 

Robert  Morris,  political  career        ^  ]  33^  Robcrt  Morris,  froui  wbom  cauic  a  scrics 

ot.  -^  ' 

of  letters,  given  in  tbe  following  volumes,  not 
merely  exbibiting  tbe  true  principb\s  of  finance  on  wliicb  alone  a  solid 
government  could  be  built  up,  but  presenting  to  France,  as  our  only 
reliable  p]uropean  ally,  tbe  grounds  on  wbicb  ber  financial  aid  could  be 
claimed,  was  born  in  England  in  1731.  Coming  to  Pbiladeli>bia  in  1717 
be  entered  as  a  clerk  in  tbe  bouse  of  Cbarles  Willing,  tben  taking  tbe 
lead  in  tbe  foreign  commerce  of  Ibe  Colonies.  By  bis  business  genius, 
as  well  as  by  bis  activity  and  fidelity,  Morris  was,  wbeu  became  of  age, 
promoted  to  a  partnersbip  in  tbis  bouse  ;  and  be  soon  became  remarka- 
ble not  only  for  bis  fertility  of  expedients  and  for  bis  integrity,  but  for 
bis  knowledge  of  tbe  commercial  relations  of  tbe  old  world  as  well  as  of 
tbe  new,  and  for  bis  eminent  powers  of  political  as  well  as  financial  or- 
ganization. He  opposed  tbe  stamp  net  ;  and  tbougb  in  so  doing  be  acted 
greatly  against  bis  business  interests,  be  signed  tbe  non-importation 
agreement  of  1705.  As  a  delegate  to  tbe  Continental  Congress  of  1775- 
?76,  wbile  at  first  be  opposed  tbe  Declaration  of  independence  as  prema- 
ture, be  signed  tbat  paper  when  it  was  agreed  on,  and  from  tbat  time 
onward  be  gave  witbout  stint  bis  time,  bis  money,  and  bis  credit  to 
tbe  revolutionary  cause.     Elected  in  February,   1781,  to  tbe  superin- 

597 


§  183.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [cHAP.  XVII. 

*^ remedial"  school  of  politics,  as  distinguished  from  that  which  was 
tendeucy  of  finance,*  he  entered  at  once  into  the  work  of  reducing  into 
system  the  monetary  affairs  of  the  country,  which  had  been  thrown  into 
almost  desperate  confusion  by  the  failure  of  the  States  to  comply  with 
requisitions  on  them,  by  the  loss  of  value  of  the  paper  money  which 
Congress  had  lavishly  issued,  and  by  the  unwillingness  of  capitalists  at 
home  and  abroad  to  lend  money  to  a  government  whose  finances  were 
so  recklessly  managed.  Of  his  financial  policy  a  sketch  will  be  given 
in  the  next  section.  To  his  consummate  ability  as  an  administrator  a 
brief  tribute  has  been  already  paid,  t  and  the  bitterness  of  the  congres- 
sional opposition  to  him  has  been  also  noticed.J    Under  the  impression 

*  Oa  Feb.  21,  1781,  Jones,  one  of  the  Virginia  delegation,  wrote  to  Washington 
(Letters  of  Joseph  Jones,  by  Ford,  j).  69) :  "Yesterday  Mr.  Morris,  withont  a  vote 
against  him  (though  S.  A.  [Samuel  Adams]  and  his  colleague  General  W.  [Artemas 
Ward]  declined  to  ballot),  was  chosen  financier." 

i  Supr'a,  ^  4.  Washington,  Franklin,  and  Hamilton  were  earnest  in  their  expression 
of  conviction  of  Morris'  supreme  qualifications  for  the  post.  (1  Bolles'  Financial  His- 
tory, 2G8)  ;  and  see  index,  Washington,  Franklin,  and  Morris  ;  8  Lodge's  Hamilton, 
86 ;  as  to  Edward  Everett's  high  opinion  of  him,  see  33  North  American  Review,  4^3. 

t  Supra,  ^  14.  The  opposition  to  him  was  headed  by  Samuel  Adams  and  Richard  H. 
Lee,  and  was  duo  in  part  to  personal  antagonism,  in  part  to  that  dread  of  a  co-ordinate 
executive  which  led  these  eminent  men  to  oppose  both  Washington  and  Franklin. 
Madison's  views  of  the  attacks  on  Morris  are  thus  given  : 

"  My  charity,  I  own,  can  not  invent  an  excuse  for  the  prepense  malice  with  which 
the  character  and  services  of  this  gentleman  (Robert  Morris)  are  murdered.  I  am 
persuaded  that  he  accepted  his  office  from  motives  which  were  honorable  and  patriotic. 
I  have  seen  no  proof  of  misfeasance.  I  have  heard  many  charges  which  were  palpa- 
bly erroneous.  I  have  known  others,  somewhat  suspicious,  vanish  on  examination. 
Every  member  in  Congress  must  be  sensible  of  the  benefit  which  has  accrued  to  the 
public  from  his  administration  ;  no  intelligent  man  out  of  Congress  can  be  altogether 
insensible  of  it.  The  court  of  Franco  has  testified  its  satisfaction  at  his  appointment, 
which  I  really  believe  lessened  its  repugnance  to  lend  us  money.  These  considerations 
will  make  me  cautious  in  lending  an  ear  to  the  suggestions  even  of  the  impartial ;  to 
those  of  known  and  vindictive  enemies,  very  incredulous."  (Madison  to  Randolph, 
June  4,  1782,  1  Madison  Papers,  137.) 

From  an  anonymous  letter,  intercepted  by  the  British,  dated  Princeton,  Aug.  5, 
1783,  from  *' a  member  of  Congress,"  the  movements  against  Morris,  in  which  the 
writer  was  engaged,  are  described  with  much  vivacity,  and  it  is  shown  that  the  same 
members  who  were  endeavoring  get  rid  of  Franklin  were  endeavoring  to  get  rid  of 
Morris.  In  the  manuscript  copy  of  this  letter  among  Mr.  Bancroft's  papers  it  is 
attributed  to  Stephen  Higginson,  of  Massachusetts.  (Bancroft's  MSS.,  1783,  2,  331.) 
This  information  given  in  the  letter  is  referred  to  by  Sir  Guy  Carleton,  in  whose  hands 
it  fell,  in  a  manuscript  dispatch  to  Lord  North,  of  Aug.  29,  1783,  in  which  Morris' 
proposed  resignation  is  noticed. 

Henry  Laurens'  hostility  to  Morris,  at  least  in  the  early  part  of  his  public  services, 
is  noticed  in  the  life  of  Morris  in  Sanderson's  Biography  of  the  Signers,  343. 

To  Washington,  in  April,  1782,  Hamilton  thus  wrote: 

"  Morris  certainly  deserves  a  great  deal  from  his  country.  I  believe  no  man  in  this 
country  but  himself  could  have  kept  the  money  machine  agoing  during  the  period 
he  has  been  in  office.  From  everything  that  appears  his  administration  has  been 
upright  as  well  as  able.  The  truth  is,  the  old  leaven  of  Deane  and  Lee  is  at  this  day  work- 
ing against  Mr.  Morris.  He  happened  in  that  dispute  to  have  been  on  the  side  of  Deane, 
and  certain  men  can  never  forgive  him.  A  man  whom  I  once  esteemed  and  whom  I 
598 


CHAP.  XVII.]  LIVINGSTON — ^^lORRIS.  [§  183. 

that  this  opposition  could  not  be  overcome  by  him  so  as  to  enable  him 
to  carry  out  the  policy  on  which  he  entered,  he  announced,  on  January 
24,  1783,  his  intention  to  resign.*  A  reaction,  however,  taking  place  in 
his  favor,  he  was  induced  to  remain  until  November,  1784.  He  was  a 
member  of  the  convention  which  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  from  Pennsylvania  from  1788 
to  1795,  declining  the  position  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  which  he 
was  nominated  by  Washington.  Of  princely  liberality  in  the  disposal 
of  a  large  fortune  he  had  acquired,  be  went  towards  the  close  of  his  life 
into  unsuccessful  business  ventures.  Had  he  when  in  office  used  his 
high  position  for  personal  speculation  he  would  have  largely  increased 
his  fortune.  Had  he  kept  up,  concurrently  with  his  official  employment, 
his  private  business,  his  matchless  sagacity,  his  great  industry,  and  his 
high  credit  would  have  enabled  him  to  continue  as  the  leading  and  the 
most  opulent  merchant  in  the  land.  But  when  holding  public  office  he 
retired  absolutely  from  private  business  j  and  when  he  resumed  business 
again,  the  powers  that  had  adjusted  themselves  to  a  field  in  which  the 
forces  of  the  civilized  world  were  combatants  proved,  aside  from  a 
weakening  of  his  faculties  from  other  causes,!  unfitted  to  take  up  the 
threads  of  the  counting-room.  The  result  was  utter  breaking  down  and 
utter  insolvency.  But  this  cloud  should  not  be  permitted  to  obscure  his 
splendid  services  during  the  war.  He  had  rising  before  his  eyes, 
even  when  the  battle  was  fiercest,  the  '•  goodly  fabric,"  as  Washing- 
ton called  it,  of  constitutional  liberty ;  and  of  this  fabric  one  of  the  chief 
pillars  was  that  of  financial  honor.  To  him  also,  next  to  Franklin,  is  due 
the  maintenance  of  the  French  alliance,  since  it  was  by  his  effort  that 
Congress  and  the  State  legislatures  were  induced  to  take  action  as  to 
taxation,  which  enabled  the  French  Government  to  see  that  the  United 
States  would  meet  their  obligations  in  good  faith.  He  died  in  Philadel- 
phia on  May  8,  180G,  a  few  mouths  after  the  death  of  William  Pitt  the 
younger,  with  whom  in  some  respects  he  may  be  compared.  Both  had 
great  financial  abilities,  and  both  dealt  with  finance  in  relation  to  public 
affairs.  Pitt,  however,  through,  his  surrender  against  his  own  judgment 
to  the  anti  revolution  crusade  of  high  toryism,  involved  his  country  in  an 
enormous  debt,  and,  by  placing  England  in  the  ranks  of  continental  ab- 

rather  suppose  duped  than  wicked,  is  the  second  actor  in  this  business."  (8  Lodge's 
Hamilton,  113.     See  also  C  Potter's  Am.  Monthly,  19,  103;   14  Atlantic  Monthly, 591.) 

In  Moore's  Materials  for  History,  first  series  (1861),  70,  is  giveu  Robert  Morris'  letter 
of  Dec.  26,  1777,  to  Henry  Laurens,  explaining  his  relations  to  Thomas  Morris  down 
to  the  latter's  death.  This  letter  will  he  found  infra,  under  its  proper  date,  and  is 
well  worth  study. 

In  the  Sanderson's  Biography  of  the  Signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is 
given  an  excellent  life  of  Morris,  p.  338^'.  lu  the  large  body  of  letters  to  and  from 
Morris  given  in  the  following  volumes  will  be  found  the  most  exact  information 
obtainable  of  his  career  as  the  financier  of  the  Revolution. 

"*  See  index,  title  Morris,  for  correspondence. 

t  As  to  Morris'  decay  of  faculties,  see  6  Potter's  Am.  Monthly,  19,  103. 

599 


§  184.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVII. 

solutism,  [)revente(l  lier  from  exercising?  that  liberal  influence  on  France 
which  might  hav^e  averted  that  imperialism  which,  when  he  was  flying, 
he  saw  sni)renie.  Morris,  on  the  other  hand,  devoted  himself  not  from 
enthusiasm  but  from  a  sense  of  justice,  to  the  liberal  cause ;  and  so 
successful  were  his  services,  that  when  death  approached  him  he  was 
able  to  see  the  debts  by  which  the  nation  was  crushed  when  he  took 
office,  almost  entirely  liquidated  by  the  system  of  finance  he  liad  estab- 
lished. Both  died  insolvent.  Pitt's  debts  were  paid  by  Parliament, 
and  there  was  erected  in  Westminster  Abbey  a  monument  of  liim  in 
which  his  haughty  features  stand  out  in  marble  against  the  wall  from 
which  in  sculpture  the  eagle  eye  of  his  great  father  looks  down.  It  is 
not  creditable  to  the  United  States  that  no  monument  has  been  erected 
to  Morris  ;  and  it  is  still  less  creditable  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
that  she  took  no  measures  to  relieve  the  then  greatest  of  her  citizens 
from  an  indebtedness  for  which  he  for  a  time  had  been  confined  in  a 
debtor's  prison. 

Services  in  building  np  the        ^  1^4^  Morris,  as  has  alrcadv  been  noticed,*  be- 
States.  longed,  from  his  training  as  well  as  from  his  mental 

structure,  to  the  constructive  as  distinguished  from 
the  merely  expulsive  or  liberative  school  of  our  revolutionary  states- 
men, and  to  him,  with  Washington  and  Franklin,  and  with  Livingston 
and  Jay,  is  due  the  honor  of  gradually  evolving,  even  during  the  throes 
of  the  Kevolution,  the  system  of  executive  and  legislative  co-ordinancy 
Avhich  afterwards  became  the  basis  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  To  him  also  is  due  the  establishment,  on  sound  principles,  of 
a  permanent  department  of  finance,  which,  tremendous  as  were  the 
difficulties  with  which  it  had  to  contend,  kept  off  the  absolute  ruin  which 
was  impending,  and  opened  the  way  for  a  final  restoration  of  credit. 
Morris'  financial  policy  may  be  thus  summed  up : 

(1)  Contraction  of  the  volume  of  government  paper,  and  in  this  to 
gradually  compel  the  payment  of  taxes  in  specie. 

(2)  Abandonment  of  the  old  system  of  supplying  the  array  by  for- 
warding specific  articles  obtained  from  the  States  and  substituting  for 
it  supplies  by  contract. 

(3)  The  use  of  his  own  "  splendid  credit,  which  he  often  stretched  to 
the  utmost,  but  never  abused.  At  one  time  he  requested  General 
Schuyler  to  furnish  the  army  with  flour,  agreeing  to  be  i)ersonally  re- 
sponsible: at  another  he  obtained  funds  from  the  commander  of  the 
French  fleet  to  pay  the  American  army  upon  his  individual  promise  to 
return  the  same  within  a  specific  period,  and  many  otht^r  transactions 
like  these  might  be  related.  In  no  instance  did  he  fail  to  fulfill  his 
promise,  though  on  several  occasions  he  seemed  to  be  near  the  brink 
of  failure.  At  first  the  people  of  the  Eastern  States  distrusted  Morris' 
ability  to  redeem  his  obligations,  which  consequently  depreciated  from 

*  Supra,  $  14. 
GOO 


CHAP.  XVII. ]  LIVINGSTON MORRIS.  [§  184. 

10  to  15  per  cent.  Ere  long  tbey  rose  in  viilue  to  par,  and  were  taken 
without  besitation."  *  In  this  way  he  provided  the  funds  for  the  cam- 
paign which  cuhninated  at  Yorktown,  and  a  hirge  part  of  the  armament 
for  that  campaign,  '' together  with  the  expense  of  provisions  for  and 
pay  of  the  troops,  was  accomj^lished  on  the  personal  credit  of  Robert 
Morris,  who  issued  his  notes  to  the  amount  of  11,400,000,  which  were 
finally  all  paid.^t 

(4)  Immense  reduction  of  revenue  expenditures  :  for  while  the  depart- 
ment of  state  was  left  with  three  clerks,  there  were  many  hundreds  of 
agents  and  subagents  who  had  been  employed  in  ])uying  and  distrib- 
uting supplies.  ''  In  a  single  day  were  brushed  oft  one  hundred  and 
forty-six  supernumerary  officers,  who  for  a  long  period  had  been  suck- 
ing their  nourishment  from  the  nation.  Expenses  were  greatly  reduced 
in  the  quartermaster's,  commissaries'  of  i)rovisious  and  military  stores, 
in  the  hospital,  and  in  ev^ery  department." f 

(5)  Reduction  of  public  indebtedness  to  a  specie  basis. 

(C)  Such  a  presentation,  by  letters,  of  the  finances  of  the  country  as 
led  to  increased  energy  in  State  taxation,  and  produced  a  strong  argu- 
ment on  which  an  appeal  for  foreign  loans  could  be  reste<l. 

(7)  The  establishment  as  a  war  measure  of  a  national  bank  as  a  specie- 
paying  institution,  made  so  by  the  use  of  his  personal  credit. 

*'  Thosudden  restoration  of  public  and  private  credit  w  Inch  took  i)lace 
on  the  establishment  of  the  bank  was  an  event  as  extiaordinary  in  itself 
as  any  domestic  occurrence  during  the  progress  of  the  Revolution." 
Morris'  credit  §  led  to  the  reception  in  its  vaults  of  specie  both  in  pay- 
ment of  stock  subscriptions  and  as  deposits.  Within  four  mouths  after 
it  was  opened  it  was  able  to  loan  Congress  $400,000.  The  circulation 
of  the  bank,  paid  in  specie  and  kept  at  par,  was  of  immense  value  in 
increasing  the  volume  of  currency  and  restoring  public  confidence.  The 
bank,  it  must  l)e  remembered,  was  designed  to  be  a  government  fiscal 
agent,  and  its  operations  were  limited  to  this  sphere,  with  the  liberty 
of  issuing  redeemable  paper  to  the  government  wIhmi  making  its  loans. 

The  following,  from  Robert  Morris,  w^as  })rinted  in  the  Independent 
Gazetteer  of  April  8,  1788  : 

^^  To  the  printer  of  Ihe  Independent  Gazetteer,  Philadelphia: 

''Richmond,  21-s/  Mareh,  1788. 
"Sir:  From  some  of  your  Gazettes  which  have  lately  reached  me,  ami  particularly 
from  one  of  the  13th  instant,  I  find  that  I  am  charged  as  a  puldic  defaulter  to  a  very 
considerable  amount.  This  assertion  is  made  to  su|»port  a  chaige  against  the  federal 
Constitution,  ^hich  those  writers  say  is  calculated  to  screen  defaulters  from  justice. 
Without  pretending  to  in(i[uire  whether  the  Constitution  he,  in  this  respect,  misun 
derstood  or  misrepresented,  1  readily  agree  that  if,  on  fair  investigation,  that  fault 
shall  really  appear,  an  amendment  ought  to  he  made. 


*  1  Bolles'  Financial  History,  285.     See,  for  reference,  index,  title  Morris. 

t  Judge  Peters,  in  G  Potter's  Amer.  Monthly,  22. 

t  1  Bolles'  Financial  History,  '299. 

$  Sanderson's  Biography  of  Signers  of  the  Declaration,  351. 

601 


§  184.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVII. 

"I  stand  charged  iu  a  twofold  capacity:  First,  as  a  chairman  of  comtuittees  of 
Congress,  aud,  secondly,  as  siiperiutendeut  of  the  duauces.  But  it  so  happens  that 
in  neither  of  those  capacities  did  I  ever  touch  one  shilling  of  the  public  money. 

*' At  an  early  period  of  the  Revohition  I  contracted  with  the  committees  to  import 
arms,  ammunition,  and  clothing,  and  was  employed  to  export  American  produce  and 
make  remittances  on  account  of  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  lodging  funds 
iu  Europe.  To  effect  these  objects  I  received  considerable  sums  of  money.  The 
business  has  been  performed,  but  the  accounts  are  not  yet  settled.  Among  the  various 
causes  which  have  hitherto  delayed  the  settlement  I  shall  only  mention  here  that  I 
have  not  yet  been  able  to  obtain  the  required  vouchers  for  delivery  of  articles  iu  dif- 
ferent partsof  America,  nor  the  duplicates  of  some  accounts  and  other  needful  papers 
which  were  lost  at  sea  during  the  war.  It  was  my  intention  to  have  gone  in  person 
to  New  York,  where  alone  (since  the  removal  of  Congress)  this  business  can  be  finally 
adjusted ;  but  circumstances  unexpected  obliged  me  to  come  to  this  country.  I  there- 
fore employed  a  gentleman  to  proceed  on  the  settlement  of  those  accounts,  but  during 
the  investigation  obstacles  arose  which  he  was  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the 
transactions  to  remove  ;  and  as  some  of  the  deficient  vouchers  are  to  be  obtained  iu 
this  State  and  South  Carolina,  he  came  on  hither,  and  is  now  iu  pursuit  of  them.  I 
have  indeed  been  less  solicitous  on  this  subject  than  otherwise  I  should  have  been 
from  the  conviction  that  there  is  a  balance  in  my  favor,  so  that  no  charge  could 
justly  lie  against  my  reputation.  Nor  could  my  interest  suffer  by  the  delay,  for  the 
date  of  a  certificate  to  be  received  for  the  balance  was  immaterial. 

*' As  superintendent  of  the  finances  I  have  no  accounts  to  settle.  As  I  never  received 
any  of  the  public  money  none  of  it  can  be  in  my  hands.  It  was  received  in  and  paid 
from  the  public  treasury  on  my  warrants.  The  party  to  whom  it  was  paid  was 
accountable  ;  aud  the  accounts  were  all  in  the  treasury  office,  open  (during  my  admin- 
istration) to  the  inspection  of  every  American  citizen.  The  only  point  of  responsi- 
bility, therefore,  in  which  I  can  possibly  stand  is  for  the  propriety  of  issues  to  others 
by  my  authority.  It  is  true  that  I  caused  a  statement  of  the  receipts  and  expendi- 
tures to  be  made  and  printed,  but  this  was  not  by  any  means  intended  for  a  settle- 
ment with  Congress,  but  to  be  transmitted  by  them  (if  they  should  think  proper)  to 
the  several  States  ;  for  I  have  ever  been  of  the  opinion  that  the  people  ought  to  know 
how  much  of  their  money  goes  into  the  public  treasury  and  for  what  purposes  it  is 
issued.  Perhaps  some  persons  may  remember  that,  in  conformity  to  this  opinion,  I 
caused  the  receipts  (even  during  the  war)  to  be  published  (monthly)  iu  the  gazettes; 
and  the  expenditures,  as  I  have  already  mentioned,  were  open  to  public  inspection. 
This  mode  of  conduct  was  reprehended  by  some,  and  perhaps  justly.  My  fellow-citi- 
zens will  judge  whether  it  looks  like  the  concealment  of  a  public  defaulter.  As  to 
the  suggestion  that  the  United  States  in  Congress  were  inliuenced  by  me  to  neglect 
the  duty  of  calling  me  to  account,  I  shall  not  attempt  to  refute  it.  Every  man  who 
feels  for  the  dignity  of  America  must  revolt  at  such  an  insult  to  her  representatives. 

"  Before  I  conclude  I  think  it  necessary  to  apologize  for  having  written  this  letter 
to  all  who  may  take  the  trouble  of  reading  it.  A  newspaper  is  certainly  an  improper 
place  for  stating  aud  settling  public  accounts,  especially  those  which  are  already 
before  the  proper  tribunal,  but  I  thought  it  in  some  sort  a  duty  to  take  notice  of 
charges  which,  if  not  controverted,  might  have  influenced  weak  minds  to  oppose  the 
Constitution.  This  was  at  least  the  ostensible  reason  for  bringing  me  forward  on  the 
present  occasion.  With  what  decency  or  propriety  it  has  been  done  I  leave  to  the 
reflection  of  the  authors.  Their  exultation  on  my  'losses  and  crosses'  is  character 
istic.  To  every  pleasure  which  can  arise  from  the  gratification  of  such  passions  they 
are  heartily  welcome ;  aud  the  more  so  as  I  hope  and  expect  the  enjoyment  will  be  of 
short  duration. 

"Robert  Morris."* 


*  For  a  sketch  of  the  life  of  Robert  Morris  by  Mrs.  C.  H.  Hart,  see  1  Penn.  Mag.  of 
History,  333. 

602 


CHAP.  XVII.]  LIVINGSTON — MORRIS.  [§  185. 

c.  w.  F.  Dumas'  diplomatic     §  i,s5.  Chixrles  William  Frederick  Dumas,  numer- 

services.  ' 

Oils  letters  from  whom  will  be  found  in  the  follow- 
ing pages,  was  a  native  of  Switzerland,  but  he  passed  a  large  portion 
of  his  life  in  HoUand,  chiefly  enipioyed  as  a  man  of  letters.  He  was  a 
person  of  deep  learning,  versed  in  the  ancient  classics,  and  skilled  in 
several  modern  languages,  a  warm  friend  of  liberty,  and  an  early  de- 
fender of  the  American  cause.  About  the  year  1770,  or  a  little  later, 
he  published  an  edition  of  Vattel,  with  a  long  preface  and  notes,  which 
were  marked  with  his  liberal  sentiments. 

When  Dr.  Franklin  was  in  Holland,  on  his  way  to  France,  a  short 
time  before  his  return  to  his  own  country,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Rev- 
olution, he  became  acquainted  with  M.  Dumas.  Having  thus  witnessed 
his  ability,  his  love  of  freedom,  and  his  zeal  in  favor  of  America,  he 
considered  him  a  suitable  person  to  act  as  agent  in  promoting  our 
affairs  abroad.  Towards  the  close  of  the  year  1775,  when  the  committee 
of  secret  correspondence  was  formed,  of  which  Dr.  Franklin  was  chair- 
man, it  was  resolved  to  employ  M.  Dumas  for  executing  the  purposes 
of  the  committee  in  Holland.  A  letter  of  general  instructions  was  ac- 
cordingly written  to  him  by  Dr.  Franklin  in  the  name  of  the  committee, 
and  from  that  time  M.  Dumas  commenced  a  correspondence  with  Con 
gress,  which  continued  without  interruption  during  the  Eevolution,  and 
occasionally  to  a  much  later  period.  He  acted  at  first  as  a  secret  agent, 
and  after  John  Adams  went  to  Holland  as  minister  plenipotentiary  from 
the  United  States  M.  Dumas  performed  the  office  of  secretary  and  trans- 
lator to  the  minister.  On  the  departure  of  Mr.  Adams  for  Paris,  to 
engage  in  the  negotiations  for  peace,  M.  Dumas  remained  in  the  char- 
acter of  charge  d'affaires  from  the  United  States.  In  this  capacity 
he  exchanged  with  the  Dutch  Government  the  ratification  of  the  treaty 
which  had  been  previously  negotiated  by  Mr.  Adams. 

It  will  be  seen  by  M.  Dumas'  correspondence  that  his  services  were 
unremitting,  assiduous,  and  important,  and  performed  with  a  singular 
devotediiess  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States,  and  with  a  warm 
and  undeviating  attachment  to  th,e  rights  and  liberties  for  which  they 
were  contending.  Congress  seems  not  to  have  well  understood  the 
extent  or  merits  of  his  labors.  He  was  obliged  often  to  complain  of  the 
meager  compensation  he  receiv^ed,  and  of  the  extreme  difficulty  with 
which  he  and  his  small  family  contrived  to  subsist  on  it.  Both  Mr. 
Adams  and  Dr.  Franklin  recommended  him  to  Congress  as  worthy  of 
better  returns,  but  with  little  effect.  This  indifference  to  his  worth  and 
his  services  while  living  renders  it  the  more  just  that  his  memory 
should  be  honored  with  the  respect  and  gratitude  of  posterity. 

M.  Dumas  was  still  living  in  1701,  when  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams 
went  to  Holland  as  minister  from  this  country,  but  he  died  soon  after- 
wards at  an  advanced  age.* 

*  5  Sparks'  Dip.  Rev.  Corr.,  185. 

603 


§185.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRKSPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVII. 

Of  Dumas  Partou  tbus  writes: 

"  Diiriij<>  oue  of  his  visits  to  Holhiiid  he  (Franklin)  had  become  acquainted  with 
Professor  Charles  W.  F.  Dumas,  a  native  of  Switzerhmd,  who  had  long  resided  at 
The  Hague,  and  much  frequented  the  circle  of  diplomatists  who  dawdled  away  exist- 
ence at  that  sedate  capital.  Mr.  Dumas,  who  had  made  international  law  his  spe- 
cialty, recalled  himself  very  acceptably  to  Dr.  Franklin  in  the  autumn  of  1775,  by 
sending  him  copies  of  Vattel,  edited  and  annotated  by  himself;  a  most  timely  gift, 
which  was  |)ounced  upon  by  studious  members  of  Congress,  groping  their  way  with- 
out the  light  of  precedents.  To  him  Dr.  Franklin  addressed  the  hrst  letter  author- 
ized by  the  committee  of  secret  correspoudeuce."* 

Dumas,  as  has  been  seen,  was  charged  by  Arthur  Lee  with  corrup- 
tion,t  and  by  both  Arthur  and  William  Lee  his  services  were  constantly 
undervalued.  On  the  other  hand,  Franklin  had  entire  confidence  in 
Dumas,  as  is  exhibited  in  the  voluminous  correspondence  in  the  follow- 
ing pages.f  By  Jefierson,  who,  as  minister  to  France  after  the  peace, 
had  full  opportunity  of  becoming  acquainted  with  Dumas'  services, 
those  services  are  spoken  of  in  high  terms,  and  his  loyalty  as  well  as 
his  intelligence  uniformly  commended. § 

John  Adams,  during  his  residence  at  The  Hague,  placed  his  house  under  the  care  of 
Dumas  and  his  family,  and  many  years  afterwards  Adams  in  a  letter  to  Mercy 
Warren  (July  30,  1807),  in  reply  to  a  statement  of  Mrs.  Warren  that  ''he  took 
lodgings  at  Amsterdam  for  several  months  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Dumas,  a  man  of  some 
mercantile  interest,  considerable  commercial  knowle<]ge,  not  acquainted  with  man- 
ners or  letters,  but  much  attached  to  the  Americans  from  the  general  x>i'edilectiou  of 
Dutchmen  in  favor  of  republicanism,"  thus  writes  : 

"  Mr.  Dumas  never  lived  in  Amsterdam.  Mr.  Dumas  never  was  a  merchant.  Mr. 
Dumas  never  had  any  mercantile  interest.  If  Mr.  Dumas  had  any  commercial 
knowledge,  it  was  merely  theoretical  and  such  as  every  man  of  reading  and  reflection 
and  knowledge  of  the  world  possesses.  Mr.  Dumas  was  a  man  of  the  world,  and  well 
acquainted  with  manners.  Mr.  Dumas  was  so  much  a  man  of  letters,  that  he  was  ono. 
of  the  most  accomplished  classical  scholars  that  I  have  been  acquainted  with,  and 
had  taken  as  general  a  survey  of  ancient  and  modern  ycience  as  most  of  the  profess- 
ors of  the  universities  of  Europe  or  America.  He  was  indeed  much  attached  to  the 
Americans,  but  from  better  motives  and  more  knowledge  than  'the  general  predi- 
lection of  Dutchmen  in  favor  of  republicanism.'  Such  was  Mr.  Dumas.  He  always 
lived  at  The  Hague,  at  least  frou)  my  first  knowledge  of  him  till  his  death  at  upwards 
of  four  score.  He  had  been  in  England  before  our  Revolution  and  Dr.  Franklin  had 
been  in  Holland,  in  both  of  which  countries  Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Dumas  had  become 
acquainted  and  attached  in  friendship  to  each  other.  *  *  *  Mr.  Dumas  corre- 
sponded also  with  Congress,  and  he  was  allowed  three  hundred  pounds  sterling  a  year 
for  his  services." 

*  2  Parton's  Franklin,  111. 

+  Supra,  M47. 

;8ee  index,  titles  Dumas,  Franklin:  and  H  Sparks'  Franklin,  448,  4r)2.  498. 

^  1  Jefierson's  Writings  (l)y  Washington)  oliS;   2  id.,  287,  36(3 ;  3  id.,  SM. 

604 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

JONATHAN  WILLIAMS  SAMUEL  WHARTON. 

Jonathan  Williams' early  his-        ^  i8(j^  Joiiatbau  Williams,  wliose  iiame  appears 

iu  these  volumes  as  American  agent  at  Nantes, 
and  as  Franklin's  assistant  in  some  of  the  most  critical  periods  of  our 
diplomatic  career,  became  eminent  in  the  subsequent  history  of  the 
country  as  head  of  the  Engineer  Corps  of  the  United  States,  first  super- 
intendent of  the  West  Point  Academy,  and  organizer  of  the  military 
defenses  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  before  the  war  of  1812.  Of 
this  remarkable  man,  almost  as  versatile  as  his  uncle,  Franklin,  and 
distinguished  for  high  integrity  and  great  business  efiiciency,  as  well  as 
military  skill.  General  Cullum,  in  his  work  on  the  Campaigns  of  1812-'15 
(pp.  12,  13),  gives  an  elaborate  notice,  from  which  the  following  intro- 
ductory passages  are  taken : 

"  General  Jonathan  Williams,  the  first  superintendent  of  the  Military  Academy,  is 
so  i'lentified  with  its  early  strngoles,  and  by  his  noble  character  so  fashioned  the 
future  of  his  pupils,  particularly  those  of  his  owu  corps,  our  American  engineers  who 
participated  in  the  war  of  1812-'15  against  Great  Britain,  that  we  must  enter  some- 
what into  the  details  of  his  biography,  though,  for  reasons  which  will  appear,  he  took 
no  active  jiart  in  our  second  siruggle  for  independence. 

"  Jonathan  Williams  was  born  May  '26,  1750,  in  Boston,  Massachusetts.  Plis  Aither, 
of  the  same  name,  was  a  much-respected  merchant,  largely  engaged  in  the  West  India 
trade ;  was  a  staunch  whig,  and  among  the  foremost  patriots  who  took  part  in  the 
struggle  of  the  colonists  against  the  mother  country  ;  was  moderator  iu  1773  of  the 
memorable  meetings  at  Faneuil  Hall  to  forbid  the  landing  of  the  tea,  subsequently 
thrown  into  the  harbor;  and  in  1775  became  a  fugitive  from  Boston,  then  occupied 
by  British  troops,  who  burned  his  store  and  seized  all  his  property.  His  mother,  Grace 
Williams  (nee  Harris),  a  lady  of  good  ;ibilities  and  cultivated  tastes,  was  the  niece 
of  the  celebrated  Dr.  Benjamin  Franklin. 

''Young  Williams  receiv(Ml  a  good  English  education,  but  before  it  was  completed 
he  was  placed  in  his  father's  counting-house,  to  be  brought  iij)  as  a  merchant.  He 
was  an  intelligent  and  studious  boy,  devoting  all  his  leisure  to  the  acquirement  of 
knowledge,  thus  obtaining  a  considerable  proficiency  in  the  classics,  audareadj'  and 
familiar  acquaintance  with  the  French  language  without  exGu  a  master,  his  father 
refusing  him  one  because  of  his  dislike  to  French  principles.  Williams'  letters  from 
the  West  Indies  and  many  parts  of  Europe  where  he  traveled  display  his  maturity 
of  judgment,  excellent  business  faculties,  and  clear  conception  of  men  and  things. 

'*He  went  to  England  in  1770,  taking  up  his  residence  with  his  grauduncle.  Dr. 
Franklin,  to  whom  he  made  himself  very  useful  by  putting  his  accounts  in  comjilete 
order;  a  labor  so  highly  appreciated  by  Franklin  that  he  presented  to  Williams  a 
handsome  gold  watch,  upon  receiving  which  he  remarked  that  he  would  much  prefer 

605 


§  187]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVJIL 

the  doctor's  old  one,  which  was  given  to  him  and  is  now  a  family  heirloom.    Ever  after 
he  was  a  great  favorite  of  his  granduncle. 

*'He  returned  to  Boston  in  1771,  where  he  was  engaged  for  three  years  in  mercan- 
tile pursuits.  Just  after  the  famous  Boston  *  tea  party'  of  December  16,  1773,  ho 
again  went  to  England." 

Services  as  agent  in  Franco.  ^  187.    WbeU  io  Ellglaud,  iu  1  773,  WillitimS  tOOk 

decided  ground  on  the  American  side,  and  Gen- 
eral Cullom  gives  an  animated  letter  from  him  narrating  a  visit  with 
Franklin  to  Dartmouth,  and  a  conversation  with  Dartmouth  as  to  the 
tea  riots,  and  as  to  the  patriots'  meeting  at  Faneuil  Hall,  at  which 
Williams'  father  presided.  On  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  he  left 
England  to  join  Franklin  in  Paris,  intending  to  remain  tliere  iu  Frank- 
lin's service  or  to  proceed  to  the  United  States.  Being  an  admirable 
accountant,  he  was  placed  by  Franklin  and  Deane  in  charge  of  prizes 
and  men-of-war  belonging  to  the  United  States,  an  office  within  their 
gift.*  This  brought  him  into  close  relations  with  Thomas  Morris,  whose 
misconduct  as  commercial  agent  at  Eantes  is  elsewhere  noticed,  and 
whose  career  of  dissipation,  terminated  by  an  early  wretched  death, 
brought  much  misery  to  his  family  as  well  as  trouble  to  his  country. t 
In  the  spring  of  1777  Congress,  becoming  aware  of  Thomas  Morris'  de- 
linquencies, appointed  William  Lee  to  act  with  him  as  joint  commercial 
agent.  William  Lee  at  once  insisted  on  the  discharge  of  Williams, 
whose  business  record  was  excellent,  and  Izard  was  one  of  the  agents 
to  enforce  this  request,  using,  as  he  afterwards  reported  to  Congress, 
very  i)ereniptory  terms  to  press  his  views  on  Franklin.  Deane  con- 
curred with  Franklin  in  refusing  the  application.  William  Lee  then 
offered  to  give  the  commercial  agency  to  Williams  on  condition  of  re- 
ceiving half  the  profits;  but  Franklin  advised  Williams  to  decline  the 
offer,  no  doubt  thinking  it  an  arrangement  neither  creditable  nor  pru- 
dent. The  appointment  was  then  given  to  Schweighauser,  a  German 
merchant  doing  business  in  Kantes,  a  nephew  of  the  Lee's  being  ap- 
pointed clerk  ;  and  soon  afterwards  came  a  collision  between  Williams, 
as  naval  agent,  and  Schweighauser  as  commercial  agent,  as  to  the  lim- 
its of  their  respective  offices.  John  Adams  had  scarcely  arrived  at 
Paris  before,  on  the  faith  of  Arthur  Lee's  statements  and  without  hear- 
ing the  other  side,  he  took  to  Franklin  an  order  for  Williams'  dismissal. 
The  order  being  signed  by  two  of  the  three  commissioners,  Franklin 
had  to  assent,  and  acting  on  his  principle  of  avoidance  of  unnecessary 
<lispla3^  of  dissension  he  signed  the  paper.  The  charges  of  Schweig- 
hauser for  commissions  were  double  those  of  Williams;  Schweighauser's 
duties  as  a  foreign  merchant  gave  little  room  for  sympathetic  efforts  for 
the  United  States;  and,  in  view  of  the  high  integrity  and  great  business 
ability  shown  by  Williams  in  other  spheres,  it  became  obvious  that  the 

*  See  Commissioners  to  Williams,  May  1,  1777. 

tSee  Deane  to  R.  Morris,  Sept.  23,  1777;  R.  Morris  to  Lovell,  May  2,  1778. 

606 


CHAP.  XVlIl]  WILLIAMS WHARTON.  [§  188. 

siipplantiug  him  by  a  foreign  merchant  at  a  greatly  increased  expense 
was  a  mistake. 

Tlie  appointment  of  Williams  as  agent  at  Nantes  is  stated  in  a  dis- 
patch from  the  commissioners  at  Paris  to  the  committee  of  corresi)ond- 
ence,  March  4,  1777,  infra;  the  circumstances  attending  his  removal 
are  noticed  by  Franklin  in  his  note  to  Artlmr  Lee  of  April  6, 1778,  infra* 
The  charges  against  Williams  by  Arthur  Lee  are  given  by  Lee's  dis- 
patches to  Congress,  June  1,  1778;  June  9,  1778;  September  9,  1778; 
while  his  fidelity  and  cai)acity  are  exhibited  not  only  by  the  papers 
relative  thereto  in  the  I^epartment  of  State,  but  by  the  refusal  of  Ar- 
thur Lee  to  substantiate  his  charges  when  called  upon  by  Franklin  to 
submit  them  to  a  committee  consisting  of  the  principal  American  mer- 
cliauts  in  Nantes,  t 

In  Franklin's  note  to  Ross  of  April  26,  1778,  infra,  are  noticed  the 
difficulties  arising  from  William  Lee's  course  in  the  agency  at  Nantes. 

The  correspondence  above  noted  will  be  a  sufficient  vindication  of 
W^illiams'  character,  and  incidentally  of  that  of  Franklin,  i'rom  Arthur 
Lee's  charges  of  business  mismanagement ;  and  it  was  well  for  the  coun- 
try that  on  William  Lee's  withdrawal  the  Nantes  naval  agency  was 
again  intrusted  to  Williams.  Of  his  great  business  ability,  patriotism, 
and  courage  his  subsequent  history  gives  abundant  proof. 

subsequent  career.  ^  igg,  Qu  Williams'  rctum  to  AmcHca  hc  entered 
again  into  business,  acquiring  much  reputation  by  pub- 
lications on  questions  of  physical  science  and  of  political  economj^ 
In  1794  he  accompanied  Washington  in  the  expedition  to  subdue  the 
Western  Pennsylvania  insurrection ;  and  in  1800  he  acted  provisionally 
in  charge  of  the  department  of  public  supplies  organized  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  On  February  16,  1801, 
he  was  appointed  by  President  John  Adams  major  of  artillery,  and  on 
December  14,  1801,  he  was  appointed  by  President  Jefierson  inspector 
of  fortifications.  In  this  capacity  he  made  an  early  inspection  of  the 
western  rivers,  and  on  December  15,  1801,  under  Jefferson's  orders,  he 
undertook  the  organization  of  the  military  school  at  West  Point.  On 
April  1,  1802,  he  was  jdaced  at  the  head  of  the  corps  of  engineers,  and 
July  8,  1802,  was  i)romoted  to  be  lieutenant-colonel.  Resigning  in 
1803,  on  a  question  of  conflict  of  rank,  in  which  it  afterwards  turned 
out  he  was  right,  he  was  reappointed  to  the  post  of  chief  engineer  on 
April  17, 1805,  when  he  resumed  the  command  at  W^st  Point.  When  in 
this  position  he  was  selected  by  the  State  of  New  York  to  design  and 
direct  the  fortifications  of  New  YorJv  harbor.  He  resigned  from  the 
army  in  July,  1812,  and  returned  to  Philadelphia,  where  he  was  em- 
ployed by  the  State  government  in  the  preparation  of  State  defenses. 

*  See  Commissioners  at  Paris  to  Williams,  May  25,  1778. 

t  See  Frauklm  to  Williams,  Feb.  13,  1779 ;  to  A.  Lee,  Mar.  13,  1779  ;  to  Blake  et  al., 
Mar.  13,  1779  j  to  Williams,  Mar.  19  and  Apr.  8,  1779,  infra;  cf.  supra,  ^  118. 

607 


§  189.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVIII. 

Elected  to  Oougress  in  November,  1814,  be  died  before  bis  term  of  serv- 
ice commenced,  at  tbe  age  of  sixty-five.  lu  General  Ciillum's  work, 
already  referred  to,  be  is  spoken  of  as  tbefatber  of  tbe  engineer  service 
of  tbe  United  States,  and  as  tbe  practical  organizer  of  tbe  West  Point 
Academy.  It  is,  bowever,  witb  bis  bnsiness  cbaracter,  as  agent  of  tbe 
United  States  in  France  dnring  tbe  Eevohition,  tbat  we  bave  bere  to 
do ;  and  it  is  snfficient  to  say  tbat  tbe  extraordinary  executive  capacity, 
tbe  indefatigable  industry,  and  tbe  loyalty  to  duty  and  to  tbe  country 
sbownby  bim  in  bis  subsequent  career  were  equally  exbibited  in  bis 
naval  agency  at  Nantes. 

Samuel  Wharton.  ^  130.  Samucl  Wbarton,  wbose  name  occurs  in  several 
of  tbe  following  papers  as  a  correspondent  of  Tbomas 
Walpole,  of  Franklin,  and  of  Bancroft,  and  wbo  was  a  member  of  tbe 
Continental  Congress,  was  born  in  Philadelpbia  in  1732,  and  became 
early  in  life  an  active  mercbant  in  Pbiladelpbia.  He  was  one  of  tbe 
signers  of  tbe  nonimportation  resolutions  of  1765,  a  member  of  tbe 
city  councils  of  Pbiladelpbia,  of  tbe  committee  of  safecy  of  tbe  Revo- 
lution, and  of  tbe  colonial  and  State  legislatures.  He  was  a  prominent 
member  of  tbe  Obio  (Walpole)  Company,  wbose  plan  of  forming  a 
settlement  on  tbe  Obio  river  was  projected  by  Sir  William  Jobnson, 
Governor  Franklin,  and  otbers.  In  1767*  Dr.  Franklin,  tben  in  Eng- 
land, mentions  bis  correspondence  witb  Mr.  Wbarton  on  tbis  subject. 
Lord  Hillsborougb,  in  bis  •'  report  of  tbe  lords  commissioners  for  trade 
and  plantations,"  in  wbicb  be  considered  tbe  "  bumble  memorial  of  tbe 
Hon.  Tbomas  Walpole,  Benjamin  Franklin,  Jobu  Sargent,  and  Samuel 
Wbarton,  esquires,  in  bebalf  of  tbemselves  and  tbeir  associates,"! 
strenuously  opposed  tbe  passing  of  tbe  bill  contirming  tbe  grant  of  land 
(known  as  Walpole's  grant),  in  reply  to  wbicb  Dr.  Franklin  i^ut  fortb 
bis  powers  to  sucb  purpose  tbat  tbe  petition  was  finally  granted  June 
1,  1772.  In  consequence,  bowever,  of  revolutionary  troubles  tbe  proj- 
ect was  not  realized.  | 

"  Mr.  Wbarton  was  a  partner  in  tbe  bouse  of  Messrs.  Baynton,  Wbar- 
ton, and  Morgan,  one  of  tbe  most  respectable  commercial  associations 
in  tbe  Colonies.  At  one  time  tbe  Indians  destroyed  upwards  of  £40,000 
wortb  of  tbeir  goods  (Pennsylvania  currency);  as  indemnification  for 
wliicb  depredation  tbe  cbiefs  made  over  to  tbe  firm  all  tbe  lands  wbicb 
at  present  compose  tbe  State  of  Indiana.  '  Mr.  Wbarton,  being  an 
accomplisbed  gentleman  and  scbolar,  was  deputed  by  bis  partners  to 
pass  over  to  England  for  tbe  purpose  of  soliciting  a  confirmation  of 
tbis  grant,  in  wbicb  he  so  far  succeeded  tbat  tbe  day  was  appointed 

*  See  4  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  ed.,  136, 473 ;  Franklin  to  Foxcroft,  Feb.  4,  1772; 
8  Sparks'  Franklin,  1.  For  a  discnssion  of  this  grant,  see  Hinsdale's  Old  Northwest, 
133-139. 

t5  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  ed.,  1. 

tSee,  as  to  Walpole's  agency  in  this  matter,  infra,  $  202. 

608 


CHAP.  XVIII.]  WILLIAMS WHARTON.  [§  189, 

by  the  miuister  for  liiin  to  attend  at  court  and  kiss  the  king's  hand  on 
receiving  the  grant.  Unfortunately,  however,  in  the  interim  some  of 
his  correspondence  with  Franklin  in  furtherance  of  thelievolution  was 
discovered,  and  instead  of  the  confirmation  lie  expected  he  was  obliged 
to  fly  for  his  life,  and  was  fortunate  in  reaching  the  shores  of  France 
in  safety,  where  he  was  joined  by  his  old  friend  Dr.  Franklin.'  In 
1780  Samuel  Wharton  returned  to  Philadelphia,  and  on  February  1), 
1781,  he  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  He 
was  a  member  of  the  Continental  Congress  from  Delaware  during  the 
years  1782  and  1783.  In  1784  he  was  appointed  a  justice  of  the  peace 
for  the  district  of  South wark,  he  having  a  short  time  before  retired  to 
his  country  scat  in  that  suburb,  where  he  anticipated  ending  his  days 
in  peace  and  quietness.  His  will  was  admitted  to  probate  March  26, 
1800."* 

"  The  Ohio  affair  seems  now  near  a  couclusion,  and  if  the  present  luiuistry  stamls  a 
little  longer  I  think  it  will  bo  completed  to  our  satisfaction,  Mr.  Wharton  has  been 
indefatigable,  and  I  think  scarce  any  one  I  know  would  have  been  equal  to  the  task, 
so  difficult  is  it  to  get  business  forward  here  in  which  some  party  purpose  is  not  to 
be  served."  (Franklin  to  W.  Franklin,  April  20,  1771.  4  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's 
ed.,  395.) 

Franklin's  answer  (April,  1772)  to  Hillsborough's  report  on  Walpole's  grant  is  given 
in  5  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  ed.,  20  ff.  It  is  a  very  able  exposition  of  the  import- 
ance of  a  distinct  colonial  organization  for  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio. 

A  copy  of  Samuel  Wharton's  pamphlet  on  the  Ohio  grant,  London,  1775  (privately 
printed),  is  in  the  library  of  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society  in  Philadelphia. 

*'I  have  read  Mr.  Wharton's  pamphlet  [now  in  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society]. 
The  facts,  as  far  as  I  know  them,  are  as  he  states  them.  Justice  is,  I  think,  on  the 
side  of  those  who  contracted  for  the  lands.  But  moral  and  political  rights  sometimes 
differ,  and  sometimes  are  both  subdued  by  might."  (Franklin  to  Bache,  September 
13,  1781.     7  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  ed.,  293.) 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Coflfyu,  of  January  13,  1781,  Franklin  says  : 

"Mr.  Wharton  was  still  in  France  when  you  wrote  to  me  concerning  him,  having 
been  unfortunately  detained  many  months  at  L'Orient  b^^  the  Alliance  going  off  with- 
out him  and  the  accidents  that  befell  \\\q  Ariel.  He  did  not  sail  until  the  18th  inst. 
His  brothers  at  Philadelphia,  with  whom  I  suppose  he  is  connected  in  business,  are 
men  of  good  substance  and  character."  (Franklin's  Letter-book,  Department  of 
State.) 

Joseph  Wharton  was  in  Nantes  on  February  1,  1779,  and  was  one  of  the  proposed 
referees  as  to  the  accounts  of  Williams.  As  to  suspension  of  correspondence  between 
Samuel  Wharton  and  Franklin,  see  Franklin  to  Ingenhousz,  May  16,  1783;  8  Frank- 
lin's Works,  Bigelow's  ed.,  290. 

Like  his  cousin,  Thomas  Wharton,  jr.,  the  first  revolutionary  gov- 
ernor of  Pennsylvania,  Samuel  Wharton  took  throughout  the  contest 
a  decided  revolutionary  position,  though  the  large  business  interests  of 
which  he  was  the  head  compelled  his  remaining  in  London  for  the  two 
first  years  of  the  war.  It  was  at  that  time  that  it  was  alleged  that  he 
availed  himself  of  personal  information  as  to  the  French- American 
treaty  to  speculate  in  the  funds.     But  it  is  now  clear  that  information 

*  1  Penu,  Mag.  of  History,  etc.,  456, 
39  WH  609 


§  189.]  DIPLOMATIC    COKRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XVIII. 

of  that  treaty  reached  the  House  of  Commons  at  so  early  a  period  after 
it  was  signed  as  to  have  given  no  margin  for  specuhition.  And  when 
Wharton  appeared  in  1782  as  a  delegate  in  Congress  it  was  in  the 
recognition  on  all  sides  of  his  prior  fidelity  to  the  revolutionary  cause. 
He  took  his  seat  without  protest  even  from  Arthur  Lee. 

lu  a  letter  to  Digges  of  October  7,  1779,  Frankliu  declares  that  he  "never  under- 
stood that  Mr.  Wharton  received  any  intelligence  from  England  but  what  the  news- 
papers afforded."     (Franklin's  Letter-book,  Department  of  State.) 

In  the  Franklin  MSS.,  deposited  in  the  archives  of  the  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety of  Philadelphia  (vol.  47),  are  letters  from  Samuel  Wharton  of  May  13,  15,  19,20, 
21,  22,  and  26,  1778,  vindicating  himself  from  Thornton's  aspersions  as  indorsed  by 
Arthur  Lee,  and  asserting  that  he  had  in  no  case  since  the  beginning  of  the  Revolu- 
tion corresponded  with  the  British  Government  or  any  agent  thereof. 

610 


CHAPTER  XIX 


JOHN  PAUL  JONES— SAYllE. 


John  paui^jones- public        §  190.  John  Paiil,  OF  Johii  Paiil  JoiiGS  Hs  he  sub- 
sequently called  himself,  to  whom  many  papers  in 
the  following  pages  relate,  was  one  of  those  heroes  of  genius  who,  in 
making  diplomacy  for  themselves,  make  a  great  deal  for  diplomatists 
to  write  about.     Born  on  July  C,  1747,  in  Kirkbean,  Scotland,  for  which 
nativity,  among  other  reasons,  he  incurred  the  special  enmity  of  Arthur 
Lee,  he  went  to  sea  when  he  was  not  quite  thirteen  years  of  age,  and 
on  his  first  voyage  visited  Virginia,  where  lived  one  of  his  brothers. 
lu  1773  he  took  up  his  abode  in  Virginia,  where  for  the  first  time  he 
assumed  the  name  of  Jones.    In  1775,  when  Congress  determined  to 
organize  a  navy,  he  was  commissioned  as  first  lieutenant,  and  having 
in  this  capacity  command  of  the  sloop  Providence,  made  several  impor- 
tant captures  of  British  merchant  vessels.     In  1777  he  sailed  for  France 
in  the  Ranger,  and  when  in  France  the  confidence  felt  in  him  by  Frank- 
lin and  Vergennes  was  such  that  he  received  orders,  with  the  requisite 
supplies,  to  proceed  in  that  vessel  to  the  British  coast,  to  operate  there 
against  the  enemy  at  his  own  discretion.     On  this  cruise  he  captured 
the  British  man-of-war  Drake,  made  one  or  two  successful  incursions 
on  land,  and  seized  a  number  of  valuable  prizes.     On  May  9,  1777,  he 
was  commissioned  to  the  command  of  the  Amphitrite,  but  on  this  and 
other  projected  cruises  he  was  unable  to  obtain  force  enough  to  make 
an  effective  cruise,  and  it  was  not  until  August  13,  1779,  that  he  was 
ready  for  another  oflfensive  cruise.     On  that  day  he  started  for  a  cruise 
on  an  old  Indiaman,  which  he  called,  in  compliment  to  Franklin,  the  Bon 
Homme  Richard,  and  with  which  he  was  able  to  associate  the  Alliance 
and  the  Pallas,  and  one  smaller  vessel,  officered  by  Frenchmen,  though 
under  the  American  flag.     Driven  by  a  gale  from  the  waters  of  Leith, 
which  town  he  expected  to  surprise,  he  encountered  a  fleet  of  foity 
British  merchantmen,  under  convoy  of  the  Serapis,  of  forty-four  guns, 
and  the  Scarborough,  rated  somewhat  lower.     Then  ensued  one  of  the 
most  extraordinary  naval  conflicts  on  record.     The  merchantmen  es- 
caped.    After  a  desperate  fight  from  7  in  the  evening  till  11,  in  which 
half  the  men  on  each  ship  were  killed  or  wounded,  the  Serapis  surren- 
dered to  the  Bo7i  Homme  Richard,  which  however  was  in  such  a  ruined 

611 


§  190.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

condition  that  sbe  shortly  afterwards  sank,  Jones  taking  possession  of 
the  /Serapis.  The  Scarborough  was  taken  by  the  PallaSy  but  the  Alliance^ 
whose  commander  (Landais)  may  at  the  time  have  been  subject  to  one 
of  his  occasional  fits  of  insanity,  took  no  part  in  the  action,  except,  when 
it  became  dark,  sailing  around  the  combatants,  and  in  his  confusion 
firing  indiscriminately  at  both.  Jones  for  his  gallantry  received  a  gold 
medal  and  sword  from  Louis  XYl,  and  from  Congress  a  unanimous 
vote  of  thanks  and  the  appointment  to  command  a  ship-of-the-line,  then 
building.  But  his  services  in  the  revolutionary  war  were  now  over,  as 
the  ship  he  was  appointed  to  had  no  opportunity  to  go  to  sea.  In  1788 
he  entered  temporarily  the  Kussian  service  as  rear-admiral,  in  which 
capacity  he  continued  to  exhibit  his  genius  for  command.  He  re- 
turned to  Paris  in  1790,  and  when  there  he  received  in  1792  the  appoint- 
ment of  commissioner  and  consul  to  Algiers.  He  died  however  before 
his  commission  reached  him.  His  life  in  France  was  beset  with  many 
storms.  Witb  Landais,  his  chief  associate,  his  relations  can  only  be 
explained  on  the  ground  of  his  own  constant  waywardness  and  of  Lan- 
dais' occasional  insanity.  His  troubles  with  Landais,  with  his  own 
officers,  with  the  French  authorities  and  with  Arthur  Lee,  are,  together 
with  the  incidents  of  his  own  splendid  naval  achievements,  his  daring, 
his  chivalry,  and  his  generosity,  noticed  in  the  following  pages.* 

"Captain  Landais  bad  been  censured  and  deprived  of  bis  command  in  consequence 
of  bis  misconduct  wbile  on  tbe  cruise  witb  Jones  at  tbe  time  of  tbe  capture  of  tbe 
Strajns.  Wben  Jones  was  about  to  depart  in  tbe  Alliance  for  America,  in  June,  1780, 
Landais  went  to  LOrient  Avitbout  orders,  raised  a  mutiny  among  tbe  officers  and  sail- 
ors in  consequence  of  tbeir  not  baving  been  paid  tbeir  prize-money,  and  took  com- 
mand of  tbe  sbip  wbile  Jones  was  absent.  An  order  was  obtained  from  tbe  Frencb 
Government  to  arrest  Landais,  but  be  sailed  before  tbe  order  arrived.  Artbur  Lee 
was  a  passenger  in  tbe  Alliance,  and  advised  Landais  to  resist  tbe  autbority  of  Jones, 
and  take  command  of  tbe  vessel.  Tbe  passengers  bad  reason  to  regret  tbis  rasb  meas- 
ure, bowever,  before  tbey  reacbed  Boston,  to  wbicb  port  tbey  were  bound.  Landais 
bebaved  in  so  strange  a  manner,  tbat  it  was  found  necessary  to  deprive  him  of  his  com- 
mand and  to  put  tbe  vessel  under  tbe  charge  of  the  first  lieutenant.  In  a  letter  to 
Robert  Morris,  dated  at  L'Orient,  June  27,  Jones  speaks  of  tbis  affair  as  follows: 

"  'What  gives  me  the  greatest  pain  is  tbat,  after  I  bad  obtained  from  the  govern- 
ment tbe  means  of  transporting  to  America  under  a  good  protection  tbe  arms  and 
clothing  I  bad  already  mentioned,  Mr.  Lee  should  have  found  means  to  defeat  my 
intentions.  I  thank  God  I  am  of  no  party,  and  have  no  brothers  or  relations  to  serve ; 
but  I  am  convinced  tbat  Mr.  Lee  has  acted  in  tbis  matter  merely  because  I  would  not 
become  tbe  enemy  of  tbe  venerable,  tbe  wise,  and  the  good  Franklin,  whose  heart, 
as  well  as  bead,  does  and  will  always  do  honor  to  human  nature.  I  know  the  great 
and  good  in  this  kingdom  better,  perhaps,  than  any  other  American  who  has  appeared 
in  Europe  since  tbe  treaty  of  alliance,  and  if  my  testimony  could  add  anything  to 
Franklin's  reputation,  I  could  witness  the  universal  veneration  and  esteem  with 
wbicb  bis  name  inspires  all  ranks,  not  only  at  Versailles  and  all  over  tbis  kingdom, 
but  also  in  Spain  and  Holland.  And  I  can  add,  from  tbe  testimony  of  tbe  first  char- 
acters of  other  nations,  that  with  them  envy  itself  is  dumb  when  the  name  of  Frank- 

*  See  index,  title  Jones.  For  Jones'  vindication  of  his  course  a^a  to  the  Alliance^  see 
Jones  to  board  of  admiralty,  Mar.  3, 1782,  infra, 

612 


CHAP.  XIX.]  JOHN    PAUL    JONES SAYKE.  [§191. 

lin  is  but  moutioned."'    (7  Fraiildin's  Works,  Bigelow's  e(^,  108,  100,  citiug  Life  of 
Paul  Joues,  New  York  cd.,  183;i,  '2^)i-•^7[)  )" 

lu  a  letter  from  Artiiur  Lee  to  Sarsfield,  of  August  2i),  1780,  Laudais  is  thus  spokeu 
of:  "that  for  the  unexampled  ill  behavior  of  Cai)taiu  Laudais,  whose  reason  appears 
to  havesuttered  by  his  mi.sfoitune  in  Frauee,  he  was  at  leugtli  obliged  to  abdicate  the 
command  and  the  frigate  was  brought  into  port  by  the  first  lieuteuaut." 

EflFect  of  his  cruises.  §  191.  The  life  of  Piiiil  Joiics  lias  been  frequently 
written,  and  by  able  writers  the  incidents  of  his  re- 
markable career  have  been  discussed  t  Perhaps  the  effect  of  his 
cruises  cannot  be  better  told  than  in  the  words  of  two  eminent  English 
historians : 

"The  iusult  to  the  British  coast  by  the  combined  fleets  of  Frauee  and  Spain  was 
less  galling  to  the  national  pride  than  some  much  smaller  transactions  in  the  north. 
Paul  Jones,  in  his  birth  a  Scotchman,  in  his  feelings  a  bitter  enemy  to  his  native  land, 
iu  his  career  and  conduct  a  mere  adventurer,  but  no  doubt  a  bold  and  hardy  seaman, 
held  at  this  period  a  commission  in  the  American  service.  \\  ith  his  squadron  of  three 
ships  and  one  armed  brigantine,  ofJ"  the  coast  of  Yorkshire,  he  attacked  our  Baltic 
fleet,  convoyed  by  Captain  Pearson  in  the  Serajjis,  and  Captain  Piercy  in  the  Scar- 
horongh.  Both  these  ships  he  took  after  m  most  desperate  engagement;  and  though 
his  own  principal  vessel,  the  Bon  Homme  Richard,  which  had  been  supplied  by  France, 
was  so  far  damaged  iu  the  action  that  it  sauk  two  days  afterwards,  yet  he  carried  his 
prizes  safe  into  the  ports  of  Holland.  Paul  Joues  with  his  remaiuing  ships  next 
appeared  in  the  Frith  of  Forth.  Sir  Walter  Scott,  then  still  a  boy,  was  at  Edinburgh 
on  this  occasion,  and  has  vividly  described  the  hurailiatiou  felt  by  the  better  spirits 
that  the  capital  of  Scotland  should  be  threatened  by  what  seemed  to  be  three  trilling 
sloops  or  brigs,  scarce  fit  to  have  sacked  a  fishiug  village."  But  by  a  "powerful 
west  wind"  Jones  was  swept  from  the  coast,     (6  Mahon's  History  of  England,  410.) 

"A  far  more  enterprising  seaman  than  those  who  guided  the  French  and  Spanish 
fleets  was,  however,  at  this  time  hovering  around  the  British  coast.  Paul  Jones,  the 
most  daring  and  successful  of  American  corsairs,  was  by  birth  a  Scotchman.  He  had 
been  on  sea  since  his  twelfth  year,  had  been  engaged  for  some  time  in  the  slave  trade, 
and  had  settled  down  in  Virginia  in  1773.  He  was  the  first  man  to  raise  the  flag  of 
independence  on  the  Delaware,  and  in  1777  he  had  a  roving  commission  in  a  ship  called 
the  Banger.  In  1778  he  made  a  descent  upon  Whitehaven,  in  Scotland,  set  tire  to  the 
shipping,  took  two  forts,  spiked  thirty  pieces  of  cannon,  and  plundered  the  house  of 
Lord  Selkirk  near  Kirkcudbright. t  In  1779  he  was  placed  at  the  head  of  a  small 
squadron  which  had  been  fitted  up  at  portLi'Orient,  and  which  consisted  of  three  ships. 
carrying  respectively  forty,  thirty-six,  and  thirty-two  gnus,  with  two  smaller  vessels. 
In  the  beginning  of  August  he  was  hanging  around  the  coast  of  Kerrj' and  making- 
frequent  descents,  and  in  the  following  month  he  appeared  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Humber.  Soon  after  he  succeeded  in  intercepting  a  large  fleet  of  merchantmen  from 
the  Baltic  which  was  convoyed  by  the  Serajyis,  a  ship  of  forty-four  guns,  under  Cap- 
tain Pearson,  and  the  Countess  of  Scarborough,  commanded  by  Captain  Piercy,  a  ship  of 
twenty  guns.     A  desperate  tight  ensued  which  lasted  for  between  two  and  three  hours. 

*Iu  1792  Jones  was  appointed  confidential  agent  to  negotiate  a  treaty  between 
the  United  States  and  Algiers,  but  no  steps  appear  to  have  been  takeu  by  him  in  the 
discharge  of  this  mission,  Jones  having  died  before  he  received  his  commission. 
(Schuyler's  American  Diplomacy,  208.) 

t  Jones'  Life,  by  Sherbourne,  N.  Y.,  1851 ;  Mackenzie's  Life  of  Joues,  1841;  Simms' 
Life  of  Jones,  1845 ;  1  Hale's  Franklin  in  France,  chap.  14  ;  and  also  discussion  in  2  Par- 
ton's  Franklin,  335^.;  Cooper's  American  Navy,  chap.  8ff. 

t  He  afterwards  returned  to  Lady  Selkirk  the  family  silver. 

613 


§192.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

For  some  time  tlie  hostile  ships  hiy  so  close  together  that  the  muzzles  of  their  gaus 
touched.  The  sliips  on  both  sides  were  alniost  torn  to  pieces  and  mnch  more  than  half 
of  their  crews  killed  or  wonuded.  At  length  the  English  ships  of  war,  being  almost 
sinkiug,  were  obliged  to  surrender,  but  the  merchant  fleet  they  had  convoyed  escaped 
safely  to  shore."     (4  Lecky's  History  of  England,  113.) 

"  American  privateers  infest  our  coasts  ;  they  keep  Scotland  in  alarms,  and  even  the 
harbor  of  Dublin  has  l)een  newly  strengthened  with  cannon."  ( Walpole  to  Maun, 
July  17,  1777,  6  Cnnniugham's  Walpole,  460.) 

"  Have  you  seen  in  the  papers  the  excellent  letter  of  Paul  Jones  to  Sir  Joseph 
Yorke  ?  EUe  nous  dit  bien  des  verit<Ss!  I  doubt  poor  Sir  Joseph  can  not  answer  them. 
Dr.  Franklin  himself,  I  should  think,  was  the  author.  It  is  certainly  written  by  a 
first-rate  pen  and  not  by  a  common  man  of  war."  (Horace  Walpole  to  the  Countess 
of  Ossory,  October  1,  1782,  8  Cunningham's  Walpole,  286.) 

Stephen sayre:  his Eugiish        §  192.  Of  tbe  Giidier  liistorv  of  this  extraordi- 

antecedents.  -^  '^ 

iiary  personage  the  late  William  B.  Reed,  in  his  life 
of  Joseph  Keed,*  thus  writes: 

*'  Stephen  Sayre  was  a  native  of  Long  Island  and  graduated  at  Princeton.  In  1766 
he  was,  as  appears  from  letters  in  my  possession,  a  sort  of  land  agent,  and  correspond- 
ent of  Charles  Townshend,  then  chancellor  of  the  exchequer.  In  1774,  being  in  Eng- 
land in  the  intensity  of  the  Wilkesexcitement,  Sayre  and  William  Lee,  two  Americans, 
were  elected  sheriffs  of  London. t  At  this  time  he  was  a  bnstli  ig  partisan,  active  it 
would  seem  on  the  side  of  the  liberties  of  his  native  country  and  in  strict  communion 
with  the  opposition  leaders.  Ho  appears  to  have  been  on  terms  of  friendly  associa- 
tion with  Lord  Chatham.!  In  1775  Mr.  Sayre  was  committed  to  the  Tower  on  a 
charge  of  high  treason,  on  the  absurd  allegation  of  a  plan  to  seize  the  king  on  his 
way  to  Parliament  and  to  overturn  the  government  by  bribing  the  guards.  After  a 
close  and  severe  continemeut  of  live  days  he  was  discharged  on  habeas  corpus  by  Lord 
Mansfield.  In  the  20th  volume  of  State  Trials,  1286,  is  a  report  of  the  action  for  false 
imprisouinent  brought  by  Sayre  against  Lord  Rochford.  The  jury  found  a  verdict 
for  £1,000,  subject  to  the  opinion  of  the  court  on  a  point  of  law,  which  was  subse- 
quently ruled  in  favor  of  the  defendant  and  the  verdict  set  aside.  (2  W.  Blackstone, 
1165.)  Horace  Walpole  gives  a  very  grotesque  account  of  this  affair  in  a  letter  to  Sir 
Horace  Mann.  (Vol.  2,  340.)  The  most  detailed  narrative,  however,  will  be  found  in 
the  Stale  Trials  and  Annual  Register.  General  Howe  discovered  in  Mr.  Cnshing's 
house  in  Boston,  in  1775,  a  number  of  letters  from  Franklin  and  Sayre,  which  were 
sent  to  the  ministrj"  to  show  '  the  train  carried  on  by  these  gentlemen  to  stir  up  this 
country  into  rebellion.'  ''^S 

As  to  Sayre's  appearance  in  the  Wilkes  arena  Dr.  William  Shippen,  of 
Philadelphia,  a  brother-in-law  of  Richard  and  Arthur  Lee,  thus  wrote  to 
Richard  H.  Lee  on  August  14, 1773,  as  follows  : 

*'  Our  brother  is  shining  before  the  livery  of  London  in  mnch  applauded  speeches  in 
favor  of  Mr.  Sayre  as  sheriff  of  London,  and  by  his  eloquence  gained  a  great  majority 
of  hands  in  favor  of  Stephen  Sayre  and  Alderman  Plummer.  What  strange  impudent 
Americans!  Do  yon  remember  Sayre  ?  He  was  in  Virginia  some  years  ago  soliciting 
tobacco  commissions  anrf  did  not  behave  well ;  was  in  partnership  with  Dr.  Bardt  &  Co." 
(28  South.  Lit.  Mess.,  184.) 

*Lifeof  Reed,  27,  note. 

t  The  pop,t  to  which  William  Lee  was  elected  was,  as  we  have  seen,  that  of  alderman. 

X  4  Chatham's  Correspondence,  :}4'J,  359,  860,  366. 

^  3  Washington's  Works,  186. 

G14 


CHAP.  XIX  ]        JOHN  PAUL  JONES SAYRE.  [§  li^3. 

The  character  of  the  Wilkes  movement  has  been  already  discussed.* 
It  was  characteristic  of  Wilkes  that  those  he  used  as  associates  in  his 
campaigns  he  left  to  shift  for  themselves  when  his  own  ends  had  been 
satisfied.  And  such  was  the  discredit  that  fell  on  them  for  their  par- 
ticipation in  agitations  the  heartless  insincerity  of  which  he  himself 
afterwards  boastin«^ly  disclosed,  that  in  England  they  were  not  able 
to  shift  for  themselves  successfully. 

"copSageu'  'Vto'ck:        ^  ^^'^-  '^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  ^^  Sayrc  is  in  a  letter  of 
hoiui,  aud  St.  Peters-    June  n  1777  by  Arthur  Lee  to  the  committee  of  for- 

eign  aflairs,  where  it  is  simply  stated  that  "Mr.  Sayre 
accompanies  in  place  of  Mr.  Carmichael  (as  secretary),  who,  after  prom- 
ising, refused  to  go,"  and  on  June  28, 1777,  Lee  writes  to  the  committee 
that  his  private  papers  had  been  stolen  from  him,  and  had  got  for  a 
time  into  the  possession  of  Elliott,  the  British  minister,  by  which,  as 
afterward  appeared,  the  British  Government  was  informed  of  the  nego- 
tiations then  on  foot  between  the  American  commissioners  and  Ver- 
gennes.  No  one  can  read  the  correspondence  without  being  struck  with 
the  nonchalance  with  which  this  performance  was  treated  by  Frederick 
the  Great,  a  king  who  was  generally  quick  enough  to  resent  any  foreign 
invasion  of  his  sovereignty,  and  who  was  then  very  much  irritated  on 
other  grounds  against  England.  Arthur  Lee  represented  a  power  Fred- 
erick had  recognized  as  a  belligerent ;  aud  Frederick  would  have  had 
as  good  ground  for  serious  remonstrance  against  England  as  England 
would  have  had  against  the  United  States  if  by  order  of  the  United 
States  minister  in  London  the  papers  of  the  Confederate  envoy  in  Lon- 
don had  been  stolen  from  his  desk  and  then  the  theft  avowed.t  Arthur 
Lee  had  no  doubt  greatly  provoked  Frederick  by  his  pertinacious  ap- 
peals for  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  after 
Frederick  had  peremptorily  refused  to  hear  him  ;  but  of  in  any  way  as- 
senting to  the  Britisli  "  theft"  nocharge  could  justly  be  imputed  to  him. 

In  the  note  above  quoted,  by  William  B.  Reed,  it  is  said  in  reference  to  the  "  theft" 
that  "  there  is  extant  a  manuscript  narrative  on  the  subject,  drawn  up  many  years 
after  by  Sayre  himself,  which,  with  due  allowance  for  the  self-glorification  that  per- 
vades it,  is  curious  aud  interesting.  It  is  in  the  possessionof  William  J.  Duane,  esq." 
Of  this  letter  there  is  a  copy  in  volume  97  of  the  Sparks  Collection  at  Harvard  College. 

In  this  paper  Sayre  states  that  Elliott  ''bribed  the  servant  of  the  American 
agents  to  deliver  him  their  papers.  This  was  done  while  they  were  out  of  the  city. 
He  had  them  in  his  possession  from  1  o'clock  to  2  o'clock  at  night;  took  copies  and 
extracts,  and  sent  them  off  to  the  British  minister  at  Dantzig."  Sayre  proceeds  to 
speak  of  himself  as  a  friend  of  Chatham,  of  his  feats  in  Denmark  and  Sweden,  and  of 
his  operations  at  St.  Petersburg  in  thwarting  British  operations  in  that  city. 

On  November  7.  1777,  Sayre  presented  to  Franklin  a  plan  for  obtain- 
ing ships  for  America,  and  announced  that  he  intended  to  go  to  Amer- 
ica the  next  spring. 


*  Supra,  ^  138. 

t  Siqyra,  ^  144  ;  and  see  particularly  note  to  Lee's  letter  to  commissioners  of  June  28, 
1777,  infra,  where  are  given  the  comments  of  Carlisle  and  of  Wraxall. 

615 


§  193.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

On  December  25, 1777,  according-  to  tbe  Lee  Papers,*  Sayre,  at  Copen- 
liageu,  addressed  the  commissioners  at  Paris  as  to  tbe  disposition  of 
Denmark  towards  America,  and  as  to  bis  own  i)laus  of  retnrn  to 
America. 

On  January  13,  1770,  be  wrote  to  Franklin  tbat  be  bad  appbed  for 
employment  in  America,  and  tbat  "I  look  upon  myself  as  a  modern 
Don  Quixote,  going  about  to  protect  and  relieve  tbe  virtuous  in  dis- 
tress." f 

On  Marcb  21,  1779,  be  informed  Franklin,  from  Copenhagen,  of  his 
quarrel  with  Arthur  Lee,  saying  tbat  it  ^*  was  with  intinite  difficulty 
I  restrained  myself  from  an  open  rupture  with  one  of  them  (Arthur) 
while  at  Berlin.  I  conceive  tbat  be  did  us  infinite  prejudice  there, 
though  he  might  have  done  great  and  essential  service.  I  found  my- 
self too  weak  to  support  an  opposition  to  him,  and  too  delicately  cir- 
cumstanced even  to  complain." 

In  May,  1779,  Sayre,  according  to  a  letter  from  Yorke,  in  the  Sparks 
Collection  at  Harvard  College,  was  in  Amsterdam,  but  ''  received  no- 
where except  by  Keufville." 

l!^otwithstauding  Sayre's  announcing  to  Franklin  tbat  be  bad  quar- 
relled with  Arthur  Lee,  we  have  a  letter  from  Arthur  Lee  to  Pringle, 
alreadj^  given,  in  which  Lee,  on  August  3,  1779,  mentions  tbat  he  is  in- 
formed by  Sayre  tliat  Dumas  is  at  Passy,  trying  corruptly  to  inflaence 
Franklin  to  give  a  loan  agency  to  a  French  bouse,  though  *'  tbe  house 
ot  Grand,  in  whose  bauds  it  is  at  present,  is  in  partnership  with  Deane 
(in  which  probably  the  doctor  may  share)."  | 

When  at  Copenhagen  and  Stockholm,  early  in  1779,  Sayre  volun- 
teered, according  to  bis  own  account  as  detailed  in  tbe  next  section,  to 
attend  conferences  as  to  tbe  armed  neutrality  then  proposed  by  Russia; 
and  in  these  places  be  presented  himself  in  the  guise,  as  it  seems,  of  a 
representative  from  tbe  American  Congress,  under  what  pretenses  and 
with  what  success  will  be  narrated  in  tbe  next  section. 

On  October  10,  1779,  be  wrote  to  Franklin,  asking  to  be  appointed 
captain  of  tbe  Alliance  frigate. 

The  next  we  hear  of  him  is  in  a  note  from  Franklin  to  Dumas  of  Novem- 
ber 8, 1779,  stating  tbat  Sayre  bad  applied  for  a  commission  as  privateer, 
which  had  been  refused,  as  be  could  not  give  the  requisite  security. 
In  July,  1780,  be  appeared  at  St.  Petersburg.  Of  bis  feats  at  that 
place  our  minister,  Dana,  who  arrived  there  in  the  following  summer, 
appears  to  have  had  no  information;  and  he  has  nothing  to  say  about 
him  in  bis  dispatclies,  which  would  certainly  not  have  been  tbe  case  if 


*  Harvard  MSS. 

tin  a  cliaracteristic  "'intercepted"  letter  of  Sayre's,  dated  Aug.  25,  1778,  he  asks 
his  correspondent  to  obtain  for  him  a  privateer  agency  in  Copenhagen,  but  asks  that 
the  Paris  commissioners  be  not  consulted  ;  "don't  trust  that  channel,  but  try  every 
other." 

\  See  letter,  supj-a,  ^  147. 

610 


CHAP   XIX  ]  JOHN    PAUL    JONES — SAYRE.  [§194. 

Sayre  bad  been  known  at  St.  Petersburg  as  an  American  envoy.  But 
this  deficiency  is  made  up  by  the  extraordinary  attention  paid  to  Sayre's 
proceedings  by  Harris,  then  British  minister  at  St.  Petersburg.  In 
Harris'  published  corresi)ondence  Sayre  is  spoken  of  as  ''  an  American 
agent,  si)y,  and  speculator,"  who  accused  the  English  of  being  the 
authors  of  a  certain  fire  by  which  the  Russian  fleet  was  injured;  and 
who,  in  an  attempt  to  get  compensation  for  a  ship  he  falsely  alleged  to 
have  been  so  destroyed,  was  foiled  by  Harris.*  And  in  other  as  yet 
unpublished  dispatches  of  Harris,  Sayre  receives  the  following  addi- 
tional notices : 

"  No  Englishman  is  known  to  him.  He  has  called  on  the  French  charsr(<  d'aflTairos, 
who  does  not  choose  to  trust  him.  Ho  visited  the  Duchess  of  Kingston,  and  as  slu'. 
suspected  who  he  was,  she  advised  him  to  leave  the  country  directly.  *  *  *  He  is 
as  yet  unknown  to  the  puhlic,  and  as  he  meets  with  no  encouragement  anywhere,  I 
flatter  myself  he  will  depart  without  my  giving  him  consequence  hy  ministerial 
interposition."     (Harris  to  Stormont,  April  24,  May  5,  1780.) 

*SSayre,  after  having  employed  various  methods  to  g:iin  importance  and  to  excite 
curiosity,  seems  at  last  resolved  to  leave  us.  He  said  before  one  of  the  persons  I  had 
set  about  him  that  he  was  sent  on  a  fool's  errand  ;  that  be  had  succeeded  in  nothing, 
and  was  only  making  himself  ridiculous  by  staying  here.  It  does  not  appear  that  lie 
was  in  any  shape  accredited  by  the  Congress,  or  come  with  any  other  view  than  to 
try  the  ground.  I  am  told  that  he  is  plausible,  impudent,  and  indiscreet,  with  bet- 
ter parts  than  judgment,  enterprising  in  forming  a  bold  ]iroject,  but  unequal  to  its 
execution.  He  bears  every  feature  of  a  rebellious  adventurer,  but  is  without  those 
qualities  requisite  to  obtain  the  confidence  even  of  his  own  party.  I  am  convinced 
had  he  remained  here  no  inconvenience  would  have  attended  it ;  but  it  is  now  known 
that  he  departs  disappointed  and  dissatisfied."  (Same  to  same,  May  1  [12],  1780; 
see  also  same  to  same,  May  15  [26],  1780;  July  18,  1780.     Bancroft  MSS.) 

One  thing  in  respect  to  Sayre's  St.  Petersburg  adventures  is  plain, 
and  that  is,  that  he  was  there  without  any  authority  whatever  from 
Congress,  or  from  any  one  authorized  to  act  for  Congress. 

On  June  12,  1782,  Sayre,  being  then  in  Paris,  wrote  to  Franklin,  sug- 
gesting that  it  be  made  a  condition  of  peace  that  Porto  Eico  be  made 
a  free  port,  and  proposing  that  he  be  made  governor  of  Porto  Rico. 

His  subsequent  proceedings        K  194,  jji  1785  Savrc  appeared  before  Congress 

in  tho  United  States.  ^  J  t  t  » 

with  a  claim  for  vservices  rendered  abroad  during 
the  Revolution,  and  this  claim  was  referred  to  Jay,  then  secretary  of 
foreign  affairs.  On  April  7,  1785,  Jay  reported  that  so  far  as  such 
claim  was  for  services  at  Copenhagen  in  furthering  the  treaty  of  armed 
neutrality  it  was  without  support,  but  that  he  was  entitled  to  reason- 
able compensation  for  his  services  as  secretary  to  Arthur  Lee,  and  that 
Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Arthur  Lee  be  consulted  as  to  what  those  services 
were.  In  1794,  the  claim  being  renewed,  it  appeared  that  Sayre  had 
not  applied  to  Franklin  or  Leo  for  a  statement  as  proposed,  Franklin 
having  died  and  Sayre's  relations  with  Lee  being  unfriendly.  Edmund 
Randolph,  to  whom,  as  secretary  of  state,  the  claim  was  then  referred, 

*  1  Malmeshury  Correspondence,  283. 

617 


§  194.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

reported  in  favor  of  allowing  a  salary  to  Sayre  duriog  the  period  for 
which  he  was  iu  service  iu  Berliu.  Ou  December  16,  1794,  Sayre  had 
leave  to  withdraw  his  petition.  The  claim,  however,  came  up  again  in 
1800,  and  on  March  4,  1800,  Dwight  Foster,  as  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee of  claims,  reported  against  it  in  toto,  holding  that  Sayre  was  not 
a  political  agent  but  a  private  adventurer ;  that  he  was  not  at  any  time 
secretary  of  the  Berlin  legation ;  that  be  could  readily  hav^e  got  the 
proof  to  sustain  his  claim  from  Arthur  Lee,  as  they  were  in  New  York 
together  after  Jay's  report  was  made,  but  that  he  waited  until  Franklin 
and  Lee  were  dead,  but  that  Lee  had  expressed  himself  against  the 
claim  in  all  its  bearings.    The  claim  was  then  again  defeated. 

In  1805  it  once  more  made  its  appearance,  and  was  referred  to 
Madison,  as  secretary  of  state,  who,  in  a  report  of  January  31,  1805, 
after  referring  to  prior  reports,  and  saying  that  Sayre's  claim  to  an 
additional  allowance  from  Congress,  "being  supported  only  by  the 
kind  of  proof  which  he  adduces,  must  necessarily  be  submitted  on  its 
peculiar  merits,  held  that  the  reasonableness  of  his  claim  to  remu- 
neration for  services  of  a  general  nature  after  he  left  Berlin,  as  it  is  in 
the  nature  of  an  ai)peal  to  the  liberality  of  Congress,  can  be  best  appre- 
ciated by  them  on  a  view  of  all  the  circumstances  he  sets  forth  and  the 
species  of  evidence  he  adduces  to  support  them."  No  favorable  action, 
however,  was  taken,  and  in  1807  the  claim  again  was  sent  to  Congress, 
being  limited  at  this  time  to  "  remuneration  for  the  time  he  was  act- 
ually employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  at  the  court  of  Ber- 
lin and  the  usual  allowance  for  returning  home."  The  house  commit- 
tee of  claims,  on  January  12,  1807,  sustained  this  claim  and  reported  a 
resolution  for  its  settlement.  The  resolution  passed  both  houses  in 
this  shape. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  charges  in  the  claim  as  originally  pre- 
sented was  that  for  compensation  for  services  in  attending  a  congress 
at  Stockholm  in  1778,  and  in  using  effective  influence  to  induce  Eussia  to 
undertake  the  league  for  armed  neutrality.  To  sustain  this,  Sayre 
l)roduced  what  Dwight  Foster,  on  behalf  of  the  committee  of  claims 
of  1800,  calls  "  a  small  piece  of  paper  which  Mr.  Sayre  says  was  sent  by 
Mr.  Franklin  to  the  Danish  ministry^  and  couched  in  the  following  terms : 
*  Passy,  December  25,  1778.  I  has^e  considered  this  proposition,  and 
see  no  objection  to  it.  I  will  write  to  the  Congress  in  favor  of  it,  if  de- 
sired. The  Congress,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  will  draw  no  bills  of  ex- 
change on  me  without  enabling  me  to  pay  them.  We  have  paid  all  their 
bills  hitherto.  I  have  no  doubt  of  Mr.  Sayre's  being  well  received  by 
Congress,  agreeable  to  them,  and  very  proper  to  be  employed  in  estab- 
lishing the  i^roposed  connection  of  commerce.' "  Now  as  to  this  it  is  to 
be  observed  that  tbere  was  no  proof  that  the  handwriting  was  Frank- 
lin's; that  the  contents  and  style  of  the  letter  were  inconsistent  both 
with  his  style  and  his  own  statements  before  and  afterwards;  that  Con- 
gress did  draw  on  him  frequently  without  enabling  him  to  pay  ;  that 
618 


CHAP.  XIX  ]        JOHN  PAUL  JONES SAYRE.  [§  194. 

uo  trace  of  the  note  is  to  be  foiuid  among  Friinklin's  papers;  that  it  was 
never  procliieed  till  after  Franklin's  death  ;  and  that  in  December,  1778, 
no  letters  api)ear  to  have  been  written  by  Franklin,  it  being  the  i)eriod, 
])robably,  of  one  of  his  attacks  of  gont.  And,  in  addition  to  this,  we 
liave  a  letter  from  Franklin  to  Sayre,  heretoftre  nnpnblished,  in  which, 
on  March  31,  1779,*  he  informs  Sayre  that  he  had  no  power  togivehira 
any  employment  worth  accepting,  and  then,  in  answer  to  Say  re's  state- 
ment that  he  had  "andiences"  with  eminent  people  in  Copenhagen, 
the  pertinent  question  is  asked  :  "  I  saw  in  the  newspapers  that  a  dep- 
uty of  Congress  was  at  Stockholm  ;  did  you  obtain  the  audiences  you 
mention  on  assmninff  that  character  f  "  It  is  clear  from  this  that  Frank- 
lin did  not  write  the  memorandum  of  December  25, 1778,  and  that  Sayre 
went  to  Stockholm  claiming  a  position  to  which  he  was  not  entitled. 
And  thai  Sayre  at  the  time  acknowledged  this  appears  from  a  letter 
from  him  to  Franklin  of  April  13,  1779,  now  among  the  Franklin  Pa- 
pers in  the  archives  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society  at  Phila- 
delphia. 

'*  Your  excellency  may  easily  suppose  that  after  the  matters  wbicb  passed  at  Ber- 
lin were  become  public  I  was  considered  and  universally  denominated  a  deputy  of 
Congress,  and  tbougb  I  bave  on  some  occasions  been  under  necessity  of  denying  it,  1 
was  not  believed."  He  then  goes  on  to  speak  of  certain  interviews  be  bad  with 
persons  in  authority  as  to  West  India  cessions. 

'*  After  tbe  peace  of  1783  Mr.  Sayre  returned  to  Anierica,  and  resided  at  Point 
Breeze,  near  Bordeutown,  afterwards  tbe  seat  of  Joseph  Bonaparte.  In  1795  be  was 
an  active  opponent  of  tbe  administration  of  General  Washington,  and  bad  a  large 
share  in  tbe  attacks  on  Jay's  treaty.  (1  Gibbs'  Wolcott,  247.)  Professor  George 
Tucker  tells  me  he  remembers  seeing  him  at  Richmond,  where  it  was  understood  be 
was  an  agent  of  Miranda.  He  died  in  Virginia  about  tbe  year  1820.  A  life  of  more 
singular  though  profitless  variety  is  rarely  found."     (1  Life  of  Joseph  Reed,  27,  note.) 


See  infr  •  of  that  date. 

G19 


CHAPTER  XX. 


A  USTIN— BANCROFT, 


Austin's  secret  ajrency  for  §   I95,    JonathaU  Lorillff  Austill  WRS  bOHl  ill  BOS- 

Frauklm.  -^  '^ 

toil  iu  January,  1748,  was  graduated  in  Harvard 
College  in  1766,  and  went  into  business  in  Portsmouth,  New  Hamp- 
shire, where  he  remained  until  the  war  broke  out.  Ho  then  became 
lirst  major  in  a  New  Hampshire  regiment,  then  aid  to  General  Sulli- 
van, and  then  secretary  to  the  Massachusetts  board  of  war.  He  acted 
as  secretary  to  Franklin,  and  occasionally  as  his  secret  agent  in  Eng- 
land, until  1779,  when  he  was  sent  to  Philadelphia  with  dispatches 
from  the  commissioners.  Massachusetts  sent  him  to  Europe  in  1780 
as  an  agent  to  procure  a  loan,  but  he  was  captured  b}^  a  British  cruiser 
on  the  waj^,  and  though  subsequently  released,  returned  in  the  fall  of 
1781  without  success  in  this  i^articular  mission.  He  was  appointed 
Fourth  of  July  orator  in  Boston  in  1786;  was  state  treasurer  and  sub- 
sequently secretary  of  state  of  Massachusetts,  and  for  several  terms 
state  senator.  These  facts  are  mentioned  to  show  the  high  position  of 
a  man  who,  as  Franklin's  confidential  agent  in  dealing  with  the  English 
opposition,  was  involved  by  Arthur  Lee  in  the  charge  of  stockjobbing. 
The  charge  was  groundless,  Austin  being  a  man  of  singular  probity  and 
loyalty.  But  ihe  fact  of  his  acting  as  emissary  in  such  a  relation,  com- 
miinicating  Franklin's  views,  as  far  as  was  prudent,  to  the  English 
opposition,  shows  what  the  position  of  the  leading  members  of  that 
opposition  was.  They  believed  that  the  subjugation  of  America  would 
be  followed  by  the  subjugation  of  England  ;  and  in  view  of  the  proba- 
bility of  such  a  result,  and  of  the  ruin  of  free  i)rinciples  which  would 
follow,  we  can  understand  why  they  should  welcome  any  information 
which  would  strengthen  the  position  they  held. 

In  2  Parton's  Life  and  Times  of  Franklin,  306,  we  have  the  follow- 
ing: 

I  have  remarked  before  that  Dr.  Frauklin  habitually  made  use  of  his  acquaiutauce 
with  the  leaders  of  the  Euj^lish  opposition  to  convey  to  Euglaud  correct  iaformatiou 
of  the  state  of  things  iu  America.  The  interests  of  America  and  the  iutercstsof  that  op- 
position were  identical ;  a  victory  in  the  United  States  over  the  king's  troops  presaged 
and  hastened  the  decisive  victory  in  the  House  of  Commons  over  the  king's  hired  major- 
ity. During  the  progress  of  the  late  negotiations  Dr.  Frauklin  resolved  upon  send- 
ing to  England  Mr.  Austin,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  giving  Lord  Shelburue,  Mr.  Fox, 
Mr.  Burke,  Lord  Rockingham,  and  the  liberal  members  of  Parliament  such  a  com- 
plete insight  into  American  atfairs  as  would  enable  them  to  demonstrate  the  impossi- 

620 


CHAP.  XX  ]  AUSTIN BANCROFT.  [§  196. 

bility  of  reducing  tho  States  to  Bubniission.  The  strange  spectacle  was  then  afforded 
of  tlio  most  eniiuent  Britifsh  statesmen  associating  with  and  entertaining  in  their 
houses  a  commissioned  emissary  of  their  king's  revolted  subjects  ;  the  king's  own  son 
and  heir  not  disdaining  his  society.  The  secret  was  v/ell  kept,  however,  and  few 
persons  even  at  this  hite  day  are  aware  that  such  an  andacioris  mission  was  ever 
undertaken.  At  the  death  of  Mr.  Austin,  in  182(5,  his  family  gave  the  public  a  brief 
account  *  of  this  singular  adventure  to  tho  following  efitect: 

'•'As  a  preparatory  measure  Dr.  Franklin  required  Mr.  Austin  to  burn  in  his  pres- 
ence every  letter  wliich  he  had  brought  from  his  friends  in  America;  in  exchange 
for  which  he  gave  him  two  letters,  which  he  assured  him  would  open  an  easy  com- 
munication to  whatever  was  an  object  of  interest  or  curiosity.  *  *  *  Trusting  to 
his  prudence,  and  enjoining  on  liim  the  most  scrupulous  attention  to  preserve  from 
all  but  the  proper  persons  the  secret  of  his  connection  with  the  commissioners,  Dr. 
Franklin  furnished  him  with  Ihc  means  of  a  conveyance  to  England.     *     *     * 

"The  letters  of  Dr.  Franklin,  and  the  desire  that  was  felt  by  the  leaders  of  the 
opposition  to  see  and  converse  with  a!i  intelligent  American  who  possessed  the  con- 
fidence of  that  distinguished  num  and  was  recently  from  the  country  of  their  all- 
engrossing  interest,  brought  Mr.  Austin  into  personal  and  familiar  intercourse  with 
the  master  spirits  of  the  age.' 

"In  reporting  the  progress  of  his  mission  Mr.  Austin  writes: 

"'My  time  passed  with  so  little  of  the  appearance  of  business,  that  if  I  was  not 
assured  it  was  otherwise  I  should  think  myself  without  useful  employment.  The 
mornings  I  devote  to  seeing  such  objects  of  curiositj^  or  interest  as  I  am  advised  to, 
and  wholly  according  to  my  own  inclination.  I  attend  constantly  the  debates  of 
Parliament,  to  which  I  have  ready  admission,  and  have  been  particularly  enjoined 
to  attend,  that  I  may  not  miss  any  question  on  our  affairs.  Dinner,  or,  as  it  might 
be  called,  supper,  which  follows,  is  the  time  allotted  to  conversation  on  the  affairs  of 
our  country.  I  am  invariably  detained  to  parties  of  this  kind,  sometimes  consisf^ing 
of  seven  or  eight,  and  sometimes  of  the  number  of  twenty.  The  company  is  always 
composed  of  members  of  Parliament,  with  very  few  others,  and  no  question  which 
you  can  conceive  is  omitted,  to  all  which  I  give  such  answers  as  my  knowledge  per- 
mits. I  am  sadly  puzzled  with  the  various  titles  which  different  ranks  require.  My 
small  knowledge  of  French  prevented  this  trouble  in  Paris;  but  liere  I  frequently 
find  myself  at  fault,  which  subjects  me  to  embarrassment  that  is  yet  forgiven  to  a 
stranger.' 

"Mr.  Austin  was  domesticated  in  the  family  of  the  Earl  of  Shelburne;  placed 
under  the  particular  protection  of  his  chaplain,  the  celebrated  Dr.  Priestly;  intro- 
duced to  the  present  king  (George  IV),  then  a  lad,  in  company  with  Mr.  Fox;  was 
present  at  all  the  coteries  of  the  opposition,  and  was  called  upon  to  explain  and 
defend  the  cause  and  character  of  his  countrymen  in  the  freedom  of  colloquial  dis- 
cussion before  the  greatest  geniuses  of  the  age,  amid  the  doubts  of  some,  the  ridicule 
of  others,  the  censure  of  many,  and  the  inquiries  of  all.     *     <♦     * 

"  The  object  of  his  visit  to  England  was  accomplished  to  the  perfect  satisfaction  of 
Dr.  Franklin,  in  whose  family  he  continued  for  some  time  after  his  return  to  Paris. 
Being  charged  with  the  dispatches  of  the  connuissioners  to  Congress,  he  left  France 
and  arrived  at  Philadelphia  in  May,  1779.  A  very  liberal  compensation  was  made 
him  by  Congress  for  his  services  in  Europe,  and  Mr.  Austin  returned  to  his  business 
at  Boston."  t 

Edward  Bancroft:  His  his-        §  i9(j,  VVe  DOW  iipproach  the  qucstioii  whether 

Edward  Bancroft,  who  will  frequently  appear  in 
the  following  pages  as  Franklin's  confidential  agent,  was  at  the  time  of 


*  Published  in  the  Boston  Monthly  Magazine  for  July,  1826. 

t  As  to  English  intermediaries,  see  infra,  ^  197, 

621 


§196.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XX. 

such  agency  in  British  employ.  It  may  be  that  at  some  future  period 
we  may  obtain  information  which  will  enable  us  to  answer  this  question 
definitely.  At  present  we  must  content  ourselves  with  marshaling 
such  authorities  as  bear  on  the  issue,  giving  merely  incidental  com- 
ments on  their  weight. 

In  Leslie  Stephen's  Dictionary  of  Biography  we  have  the  follow- 
ing: 

**  Edward  Bancroft,  M.  D  ,  F.  R.  S.  (1744-1821),  naturalist  and  chemist,  a  man  of 
versatile  talents,  and  friend  of  Franklin  and  Priestly,  published  in  1769  an  able  tract- 
ate in  defense  of  the  liberties  of  the  A'.iierican  Colonies.  He  paid  several  visits  to 
both  North  and  South  America,  and  published  in  1769  a  Natural  History  of  Guiana, 
containiug  much  novel  information.  In  1770  he  published  a  novel  entitled  Charles 
Wentworth.  In  later  life  he  became  principally  concerned  in  dyeing  and  calico  print- 
ing, in  which  he  made  important  discoveries.  In  178.5  an  act  of  Parliament  secured 
him  special  rights  of  importing  and  using  a  certain  kind  of  oak  bark  in  calico  print- 
ing, but  in  1799  a  bill  which  had  passed  the  House  of  Commons  for  extending  his 
rights  for  seven  years  failed  to  pass  the  Lords,  in  consequence  of  the  opposition  of 
many  northern  calico  printers.  Bancroft  was  bitterly  disappointed,  as  he  considered 
he  had  exercised  his  rights  liberally,  and  in  less  than  twelve  months  the  bark  in 
question  rose  to  three  times  the  price  at  which  Bancroft  had  invariably  supplied  it, 
and  at  which  by  the  proposed  bill  he  would  have  been  bound  to  supply  it  for  seven 
years  more.  In  1794  ho  published  the  first  volume  of  an  extended  work  on  colors  and 
calico  printing.  It  was  completed,  the  first  volume  being  remodeled,  in  1813.  The 
work  contains  a  valuable  account  and  discussion  of  the  theory  of  colors  and  the 
methods  of  fixing  them." 

It  may  be  added  that  Bancroft  had  been  for  several  years  before  the 
war  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Monthly  Keview,  and  had  written  in  that 
paper  a  series  of  strong  articles  in  maintenance  of  American  rights  and 
in  vindication  of  Dr.  Franklin's  position  as  to  the  Hutchinson  papers. 
On  the  other  hand,  according  to  the  historian  Bancroft,  Edward  Ban- 
croft "  accepted  the  post  of  a  paid  American  spy  to  prepare  himself  for 
the  more  lucrative  office  of  a  double  spy  for  the  British  ministers."  It 
is  further  said  that  "Deane  called  over  Bancroft  as  if  he  had  been  a 
colleague,  showed  him  his  letters  of  credence  and  his  instructions,  took 
him  as  a  companion  in  his  journeys  to  Versailles,  and  repeated  to  him 
exactly  all  that  passed  in  the  interviews  with  the  minister.  Bancroft 
returned  to  England,  and  his  narrative  for  the  British  ministry  is  a  full 
record  of  the  first  official  intercourse  between  France  and  the  United 
States.  The  knowledge  thus  obtained  enabled  the  British  ambassador 
to  embarrass  the  shipment  of  supplies  by  timely  remonstrances,  for  the 
French  cabinet  was  unwilling  to  apjDcar  oi)enly  as  the  complice  of  the 
insurgents."  * 

The  same  view  is  taken  by  Mr.  Bigelow;  f  by  the  writer  of  a  note  on 
Bancroft  in  Appleton's  Encyclopedia  of  Biography;  and  by  Doniol, 
(vol.  2,  p.  102,  note,)  who  however,  simply  relies  on  the  historian  Ban- 
croft :    *'  L'americain  (Deane)  ne  pouvait  assez  vanter  les  services  qu'il 

*  9  Bancroft's  United  States,  (ed.  1866,)  62,  64,  65. 
t  6  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  ed.,  167,  n, 

623 


CHAP.  XX.]  AUSTIN — BANCROFT.  [§1^6. 

croy ait  devoir  a  Bancroft.    Celai-ci  etait-il  paye  cber  an  foreign  office? 
Nons  I'ignorons  ;  en  tout  cas,  il  se  faisait  payer  aussi  par  Deane." 

On  the  question  of  Bancroft's  fidelity  to  the  American  cause  during 
tlie  Kevolution  we  ma}-  first  notice  the  correspondence  between  George 
III  and  Lord  North  : 

"I  can  not  say  that  I  look  upon  intelligeDcefrom  Mr.  Wentworth  with  more  degree 
of  certainty  than  as  it  is  coutirmed  by  others  ;  he  is  an  avowed  stock-jobber,  and 
therefore,  though  I  approve  of  employing  him,  I  never  let  that  go  out  of  my  mind. 
I  can  not  say  his  dispatch,  which  I  return,  contains  anything  to  build  upon,  but  it 
convinces  me  that  Bancroft  is  entirely  an  American,  and  that  every  word  he  used  on  that 
occasion  was  to  deceive;  perhaps  they  think  Mr.  Wentworth  has  been  sent  from  motives 
of  fear,  and  if  that  is  Franklin's  opinion,  the  whole  conduct  he  has  shewn  is  wise, 
and  to  me  it  nnravels  what  other  ways  would  appear  inexplicable."  (George  III  to 
Lord  North,  December  31,  1777,  2  Correspondence,  etc.,  109.) 

'*  By  an  intercepted  letter  of  Bancroft's,  received  last  night,  to  Mr.  Walpole,  it  seems 
certain  Ternay  is  not  to  go  to  the  East  Indies."  (George  III  to  Lord  North,  March  23, 
1779,  2  Correspondence,  etc.,  242.) 

Mr.  Walpole  was  Thomas  Walpole,  hereafter  to  be  noticed  as  an 
uncompromising  liberal  statesman,  as  an  attached  personal  friend  both 
of  Franklin  and  of  Bancroft,  and  as  the  party  to  whom  Franklin  com- 
municated such  American  political  events  as  he  desired  to  have  pub- 
lished in  England.  A  man  of  high  personal  honor,  he  nevertheless 
was  regarded  by  George  III  as  an  '*  avowed  enemy."  *  It  was  natural, 
therefore,  that  letters  to  him  from  Bancroft  should  be  "  intercepted  " 
by  the  British  Government,  and  that  when  read  tbey  should  be  found 
to  contain  information  for  Walpole's  use.  But  the  very  tone  of  George 
III  shows  that  he  regarded  this  **  intercepted"  letter  as  coming  to  an 
'*  enemy  ^''  from  an  ''  enemy."! 

"I  return  the  papers  received  from  Mr.  Wentworth.  You  look  on  me,  and  I  believe 
with  some  truth,  as  not  very  much  trusting  to  any  of  the  accounts  that  come  from 
Bancroft;  he  certainly  is  a  stock-jobber,  and  is  not  friendly  to  England,  and  perhaps 
the  conveyor  (Wentworth)  is  not  less  a  dabbler  in  that  commodity,  and  above  all 
wishes  to  be  thought  active,  and  men  of  his  cast  are  often  credulous."  (George  III 
to  Lord  North,  January  16,  1778 ;  id.,  121). 

^' The  intelligence  from  Bancroft"  (not  from  Bancroft  to  us,  but  gathered  from 
Bancroft)  "  may  not  be  entirely  false,  thougji  it  is  certainly  exaggerated,  for  to  intimi- 
date has  ever  been  one  of  his  chief  aims."  (George  III  to  Lord  North,  July  14, 1778 ; 
id.,  204.) 

The  following  is  even  less  ambiguous  : 

*'  Lord  North  must  see  that  all  Bancroft's  news"  (also  probably  obtained  through 
conversations  with  Wentworth)  "  has  been  for  a  considerable  time  calculated  to 
intimidate;  therefore  no  great  reliance  can  be  placed  on  what  comes  from  that  quar- 
ter. That  concerning  Prevost  is  certainly  without  foundation  ;  the  rest  may  be  greatly 
exaggerated."    (George  III  to  Lord  North,  August  25,  1779;  id.,  277.) 

Was  this  "  news  "  also  "  intercepted,"  or  was  Bancroft,  in  telling  it 
in  London  to  the  informers  of  the  administration,  doing  so  for  the  pur- 
pose of  carrying  out  Franklin's  views  ? 


*  See  infra  ^  202. 

tSee  2   Correspondence  George   III  with  Lord  North,  242,  338;  particularly  the 
whole  letter  of  Oct.  31,  1780. 

623 


§196.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XX. 

Still  more  stroDg  is  the  language  of  Stormont,  British  minister  at 
Paris,  who,  on  December  15,  1777,  in  a  letter  to  Weymouth,  British 
secretary  of  state,  speaks  of  Bancroft  being  in  ''rebel"  employment, 
and  uses  language  in  reference  to  him  which  excludes  the  idea  of  his 
being  a  British  emissary.* 

The  following,  from  the  Diary  of  Governor  Hutchinson,  shows  that 
by  that  well-informed  observer,  whose  mind  was  at  that  time  bent  on 
watching  public  opinion  in  England  as  to  the  war,  Bancroft  was  re- 
garded as  at  best  not  friendly  to  the  lo^^alist  cause. 

'*  March  9,  1777. — At  court  aud  the  drawing-room.  Lord  president  gave  me  an  ac- 
count of  John  the  convict's  confession  (of  attempt  to  fire  ships  at  Portsmouth), +  He 
is  a  Scotchman,  about  twenty-five  years  of  age.  His  name  John  Aitkin;  left  Edin- 
burgh about  five  years  ago,  aud  went  to  Virginia  ;  has  listed  and  deserted  two  or  three 
times  ;  has  been  in  Europe  about  two  years ;  confesses  eight  or  nine  thefts  aud 
robberies ;  denies  that  Dean  (Deane)  gave  him  a  bill  for  £300,  but  owns  he  com- 
municated his  design,  and  that  he  encouraged  it ;  recommended  to  Dr.  Bancroft  in 
Downing  street ;  gave  him  twelve  six-livre  pieces  ;  told  him  this  was  euo'  to  carry 
him  to  England,  and  promised  his  reward  when  he  had  performed  his  service."  (2 
Hutchinson's  Diary,  141.) 

^'March  16. — At  court.  *  *  *  Mention  made  of  Bancroft  and  of  its  being  incumbent 
on  him  when  John  the  painter  was  apprehended  to  have  informed  government  of 
John's  having  been  with  him.  Lord  Mansfield  said  he  had  seen  a  vindication  of 
Bancroft  in  a  newspaper,  which  no  doubt  by  the  appearance  of  it  was  his  own  doing, 
but  said  nothing  in  his  favor,"     (2  Hutchinson's  Diary,  144.) 

It  is  not  disputed  that  Bancroft  was  a  medium  of  communication 
between  Franklin  aud  such  English  liberal  statesmen  as  sustained  the 
American  cause ;  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  when  in  London  he  may 
have  given  Wentworth  and  other  agents  of  the  ministry  such  informa- 
tion as  Franklin  considered  it  politic  in  this  way  to  disseminate.  But 
from  what  has  just  been  given  it  is  plain  that  Bancroft  was  regarded  by 
George  III,  North,  and  Stormont  as  an  "American"  and  a  "rebel," 
and  as  in  no  sense  a  British  spy.  If  it  be  asked  why  in  such  case  was 
he  not  arrested;  why,  in  other  words,  was  he  permitted  to  make  trills 
across  the  Channel  carrying  information  to  and  fro,  the  answer  is  that 
to  have  arrested  Bancroft  would  have  involved  the  arrest  of  a  large 
part  of  the  whole  whig  opposition.  Washington  himself  could  not  have 
written  letters  more  decisive  in  their  condemnation  of  the  British  war 
policy  and  more  ardent  in  the  expression  of  desire  for  success  than 
were  written  during  the  war  by  Burke,  by  Shelburue,  by  Thomas  Wal- 
pole,  hy  Horace  Walpole,  and  eminently  by  Kichmond  and  Fox. 

As  equally  strong,  see  a  letter  from  Grafton  to  Shelburue  of  Novem- 
ber 14,  1781,  in  the  Lansdowne  Collection,  copies  of  which  are  in  the 
libraries  of  Mr.  Bancroft  and  of  Harvard  College. 

In  1888  the  question  was  put  to  Sir  Edward  Herslet,  who  has  charge 
of  the  records  of  the  British  foreign  oflQce,  whether  any  letters  written 
by  Bancroft  to  that  office  during  the  war  were  there  on  file.  The  reply 
was  that  no  such  letters  were  there  entered. 

*  Bancroft  MSy.  t  As  to  this  case,  see  su^ra  ^  iCl. 

624 


CHAP.  XX.]  AUSTIN — BANCROFT.  [§  196. 

After  the  peace  Bancroft  visited  America  for  tlie  purpose  of  collect- 
ing a  debt  due  in  South  Carolina  to  the  Trince  of  Luxenibourj^,  takiiij^ 
with  him  thefoUowingletter  of  introduction  from  Franklin  to  Livingston, 
dated  at  Pass}^,  June  12,  1783: 

^'I  l)e<>,  leave  to  recommend  to  your  civilities  the  bearer  of  this,  Dr.  Bancroft,  whoiii 
you  will  liml  a  very  intelligent,  sejisiblo  man,  well  ac(|Maintcd  with  (he  state  of  Jiffaiii^ 
here,  ami  who  has  heretofore  been  employed  in  the  services  of  Congress.  I  have  lon;i 
known  him  and  esteem  him  highly.  13.  p." 

On  November  26,  1785,  after  Bancroft  had  returned  from  Philadel- 
phia, Franklin  closed  a  letter  to  him  on  literary  and  political  matters, 
as  follows: 

''As  to  public  affairs,  it  is  long  since  I  gave  over  all  expectations  of  a  commercial 
treaty  between  us  and  Great  Britain,  and  I  think  we  can  do  as  well  or  better  without 
one  than  she  can.  *  *  *  My  best  wishes  and  those  of  my  family  attend  you.  We 
shall  be  happy  to  see  you  here  when  it  suits  you  to  visit  us  j  being  with  sincere  and 
great  esteem,  my  dear  friend,  yours  most  affectionately, 

"B.  Franklin."* 

Bancroft,  supposing  him  when  in  Franklin's  confidence  during  the 
war  to  have  been  loyal  to  the  United  States,  occupied,  when  after  the 
peace  he  resumed  British  allegiance,  a  position  analogous  to  that  of 
Benjamin  Vaughau  who,  assuming  him  to  have  been  loyal  to  the  British 
Government  when  employed  by  Shelburne  in  i780-'82  and  when  a  mem- 
ber of  Parliament  in  li92,  changed  his  allegiance  by  becoming  in  1790 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  t  When  the  war  was  over  it  was  within 
the  province  of  either  to  ( iect  whichever  allegiance  he  preferred.  Ben- 
jamin Vaughan,  after  some  hesitation  and  delay,  elected  that  of  the 
United  States,  divesting  himself  of  his  prior  political  obligations,  but 
nev^ertheless  maintaining  friendly  relations  with  British  subjects  with 
whom  he  had  previously  been  intimate.  Bancroft,  whose  interests  were 
in  England,  elected  England  as  his  domicil,  but  without  breaking  off 
his  intimacy  with  the  American  statesmen  with  whom  he  had  acted 
during  the  war.  It  was  with  the  knowledge  of  Franklin,  and,  as  we 
have  just  seen,  with  a  letter  commending  him  to  Livingston,  that  Ban- 
croft made  the  visit  to  the  United  States  which  has  just  been  noticed. 

Our  attention  must  now  be  given  to  certain  letters  of  Bancroft  on 
file  in  the  British  foreign  office,  and  written  after  he  arrived  in  America 
on  the  visit  just  noticed,  |  and  which  now  become  relevant  in  deter- 
mining the  question  of  Bancroft's  fidelity  during  the  war,  a(iuestion,  it 
must  be  remembered,  involving  not  merely  himself,  but  the  American 
legation  at  Paris  and  the  French  ministry,  who  would  both  be  open  to 
the  charge  of  gross  negligence  should  it  appear  that  when  he  was  in 
their  confidential  employment  during  the  war  he  was  a  British  spy.    It 


*9  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  cd.,  '^79. 
t  As  to  Vaughan,  see  infra,  ^  198. 

t  These  letters  are  published  in  the  appendix  to  Mr.  George  Bancroft's  admirable 
History  of  the  Constitution. 

40  WH  625 


§196.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XX. 

is  true  that  these  letters  were  written  after  the  war  closed  and  after 
Bancroft  had  resumed,  as  he  theu  had  a  perfect  right  to  do,  his  allegi- 
ance to  the  British  crown.  If,  however,  these  letters  should  establish  a 
continuous  confidential  diplomatic  agency  with  the  British  foreign  office, 
they  would  give  a  presumption  that  such  an  agency  had  existed  during 
the  war,  which  had  not  long  before  closed.  In  an  issue  so  interesting  as 
this  it  is  proper  that  these  letters  should  be  examined  in  detail. 

The  first  of  them  in  point  of  time  is  dated  at  Philadelphia,  November 
8,  1783;  the  second,  at  Philadelphia,  May  28,  1784  5   both  of  these  ad- 
dressed to  William  Frazer,  a  friend  of  Bancroft,  then  connected  with 
the  British  foreign  office,  the  address  being  to  Frazer  individually,  with 
no  official  title  attached  to  his  name.     We  have  next  in  date  a  paper 
entitled  "  Additional  information  from  Dr.  Bancroft,  dated  August  26, 
1784,"  which  was  probably  handed  in  on  his  return  to  England ;  while 
the  fourth  is  dated  at  Paris,  December  8, 1784,  and  is  addressed  to  Lord 
Carmarthen.    They  are  obviously  not  the  letters  of  a  diplomatic  agent. 
That  of  May  28,  1784,  the  second  in  order,  for  instance,  begins,  "  I  did 
myself  the  honor  of  writing  to  you  in  November  last,  since  which  I 
have  passed  several  months  in  South  Carolina  in  endeavoring  to  obtain 
payment  of  considerable  sums  due  from  that  State  to  the  Prince  of 
Luxembourg."    No  diplomatic  agent,  commissioned  and  paid  as  such, 
on  an  errand  so  critical  as  that  of  reporting  on  the  relations  of  the 
United  States  to  the  mother  country,  would  permit  six  months  to  elapse 
between  his  first  and  his  second  dispatches ;  nor  would  such  an  agent, 
on  sending  his  second  dispatch,  be  likely  to  say  that  hehad  been  engaged 
most  of  this  time  in  attempting  to  collect  a  claim  for  an  independent 
prince.     A  diplomatic  agent  sent  out  either  by  the  United  States  or  by 
Great  Britain  would,  in  an  analogous  case,  long  before  six  months  of  de- 
lay had  expired,  have  been  either  dismissed  or  severely  reprimanded  for 
his  neglect.    But  so  far  from  such  being  the  case,  Bancroft's  letter  of 
May  28,  1784,  refers  to  no  letters  having  been  received  by  him  from  his 
supposed  employers  since  his  letter  of  November  8,  1783.    It  is  impos- 
sible to  infer  from  such  circumstances  either  that  Bancroft  was  at  the 
time  acting  under  official  government  instructions,  or  that  he  consid- 
ered himself  as  a  diplomatic  agent  of  a  government.    The  correspond- 
ence, now  open  to  us,  between  that  government  and  its  diplomatic 
agents  at  that  era,  is  so  voluminous  and  thorough,  that  we  can  not  con- 
ceive  that  in  a  matter  so  critical  as  would  have  been  an  agency  to 
inquire  as  to  the  political  relations  of  the  United  States  it  would  have 
permitted  six  months  to  elapse  without  instructions,  or  without  even  a 
reply  to  the  communication  sent  by  him  on  November  8,  1783.     Yet 
even  as  late  as  August  26, 1784,  more  than  nine  months  after  that  letter, 
there  is  no  reference  made  by  Bancroft  to  any  reprimand  or  censure 
such  as  that  with  which  he  would  have  certainly  been  visited  had  he 
been  a  government  official  intrusted  by  the  foreign  office  with  a  mission 
so  delicate  and  so  important.     Nor,  in  view  of  the  zealous  discharge  of 

626 


CHAP.  XX.]  AUSTIN — BANCROFT.  [§1*^^- 

the  duties  assigned  bim  by  Franklin  during-  tbe  war,  can  we  reconcile 
with  a  Britisb  diplomatic  agency  bis  silence  for  tbe  six  niontbs  between 
Novembers,  1783,  and  May  2S,  17S4,  and  Ids  engagement  during  tiu^ 
same  period  in  a  business  commission  for  a  foreign  power.  The  solution 
of  this  difficulty  is  to  be  found  in  the  position  that  Bancroft's  visit  to 
America  in  1783  was  mainly  on  account  of  the  claim  business  on  which  he 
was  engaged  in  South  Carolina  during  the  w inter  of  1783-84,  and  that 
his  letters  to  Frazer  and  his  communication  of  August,  1781,  were 
simply  friendl}"  communications  for  the  use  of  Fox,  who  was  minis- 
ter of  foreign  alfairs  when  Bancroft  left  England.  Bancroft  was  an 
intimate  friend  of  Thomas  Walpole,  wdio  had  been,  as  we  will  see,  a 
strong  supporter  during  the  war  of  American  rights,  and  inconstant 
intercourse  with  Fox.  It  was  natural  therefore  that  Fox  should  have 
said  to  Bancroft,  '^Tell  me  when  you  get  to  America  what  you  can  as  to 
the  prospects  of  federal  alliance,  or  at  least  as  to  commercial  reciproci- 
ty," and  that  Bancroft  should  have  agreed  to  do  so,  though  without 
salary  or  obligatory  official  relations  which  would  have  put  him  under 
instructions  or  required  him  to  make  stated  official  reports. 

This  view  is  sustained  by  the  contents  of  these  letters.  The  first, 
that  of  November  8,  1783,  speaks  of  the  alarm  produced  by  the  king's 
proclamation  excluding  the  United  States  from  the  free  trade  they  had 
maintained  with  the  West  Indies  before  the  war,  and  states  that  Morris 
and  ''the  most  sensible  men  here"  (at  Philadelphia)  were  inclined  to 
retaliate  by  levying  a  tonnage  duty  on  British  vessels  coming  to  the 
United  States.  This  measure,  however,  he  declared  wouhl  fall  from 
the  inability  of  Congress  without  new  powers  to  enact  it ;  and  he  next 
proceeds  to  dilate  on  the  weakness  of  the  government  and  the  danger 
of  its  dissolution  in  terms  by  no  means  darker  than  those  used  at  the 
same  time  by  Washington  and  Morris  in  letters  hereafter  given.  He 
dwells,  in  words  singularly  like  those  used  by  Morris  at  the  same  time, 
on  the  excessive  importation  of  foreign  goods,  of  which  ''  the  British 
are  the  only  manufactures  which  have  afitbrded  any  profit." 

The  letter  of  May  28,  written  after  passing  "  several  months  in  South 
Carolina"  on  the  Luxembourg  agency,  begins  by  noticing  that  degen- 
eration of  Congress  which  was  at  that  time  deplored  by  Washington,  by 
Jay,  by  Jefferson,  and  by  Madison,  and  proceeds  to  speak  of  a  project 
for  the  payment  of  i)ublic  debts  by  the  sale  of  public  lands.  He  next 
touches  on  the  sending  "Mr.  Jefferson  to  join  Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr. 
Adams  as  commissioners  to  conclude  commercial  treaties  with  different 
European  powers,  and  particularly  with  Great  Britain ; "  and  then,  using 
language  veiy  remarkable  if  he  was  writing  as  a  subordinate  official  to 
his  i)rincipal,  he  proceeds  to  say  that  ^'a  commercial  treaty  with  your 
government  is  really,  though  not  avowedly,  the  object  which  determined 
Congress  at  this  time  to  adopt  this  measure."  He  speaks  of  a  more  con- 
ciliatory tone  in  America  towards  England,  and  adds  that  "  toward 
this  change  of  sentiment  here  I  have,  as  I  think,  contributed  in  many 

627 


§  196.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XX. 

ways.''    He  rev^erts  to  the  weakness  both  of  federal  and  of  state  govetn- 
nients,  and  then  comes  this  remarkable  passage : 

"Mr.  Jeflferson  is  just  now  informed,  as  he  tells  me,  that  the  great  leader  of  the 
Virgiuiaus,  Mr.  Patrick  Henry,  who  has  heen  violently  opposed  to  every  idea  of 
increasing  the  powers  of  Congress,  is  convinced  of  his  error,  and  has  within  thei-e 
few  days  pledged  himself  to  Mr.  Madison,  Mr.  Jones,  and  others  to  support  a  plan 
which  they  are  to  prepare  and  propose  to  the  legislature  of  Virginia  for  amending  the 
Confederation  by  a  further  concession  of  powers  to  Congress." 

After  iioticiDg  the  consular  negotiations  between  Congress  and  the 
French  Government,  he  closes  by  saying  that,  Luzerne  having  "  hired 
a  very  fine  shi^)  to  carry  himself  and  suite  to  L'Orient,  I  have  accepted 
the  ofier  he  has  repeatedly  pressed  upon  me  of  taking  my  passage  with 
him." 

The  "additional  information"  of  August  26,  1784,  furnished  after 
Bancroft's  arrival  in  England,  and  written  at  a  time  when  he  was  re- 
lieved from  any  anxiety — if  he  had  any — as  to  inspection  of  the  mails, 
breathes  the  same  spirit  as  the  two  letters  above  sketched.  He  speaks 
of  the  inability  of  Congress  to  obtain  power  to  prohibit  importations, 
and  of  a  commercial  treaty  with  Spain,  as  to  which  he  observes  that 
"  neither  Dr.  Franklin  nor  Mr.  Jefferson  had  any  expectation  of  obtain- 
ing it  when  I  left  Paris." 

He  next  takes  up  the  suggestion' that  non-intercourse  measures  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain  might  lead  to  a  reaction  in  the  American 
commercial  States  in  favor  of  Great  Britain,  and  says  that  "  if  the  views 
of  his  majesty's  ministers  (Pitt  then  being  at  the  head  of  affairs,  the 
Fox-North  ministry  having  been  dismissed  in  the  previous  December) 
extend  toward  a  recovery  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  now  United  States, 
or  toward  a  dissolution  of  their  Confederation,  or  of  their  present  con- 
nection with  France,  these  ends  will  be  best  promoted  by  an  adherence 
to  the  exclusion  policy."  He  then,  naturally  enough,  says  that  ''such 
events"  {e.  g.,  dissolution  of  the  Union  and  trade  with  France),  could 
they  be  certainly  produced,  would  not  be  very  interesting  to  Great 
Britain,  and  that,  after  ivhat  has  happened^  none  hut  commercial  advan- 
tages are  to  he  expected  from  America.  Should  this  he  the  case,  it  may 
perhaps  he  well  to  consider  whether  some  facilitks  may  not  he  advanta- 
geously given  to  the  United  States  respecting  their  former  intercourse  tvith 
the  M^est  Indies  and  the  sale  of  their  shipping  in  Great  Britain,  not  only 
to  prevent  those  essential  measures  tvhich  have  been  meditated  against  this 
conntry,  hut  for  the  more  reasonable  purpose  of  enabling  them  to  htiy  and 
pay  for  greater  quantities  of  British  manufactures  than  they  can  other- 
ivise  do^ 

The  fourth  letter,  written  from  Paris  on  December  8,  ITSl,  to  Lord 
Carmarthen,  is  on  its  face  a  letter  not  from  a  political  agent,  but  from 
an  acquaintance,  giving  such  current  news  as  could  be  picked  up  in 
Paris  as  to  the  affairs  of  the  United  States.  It  does  not  pretend  to  give 
confidential  information,  and  llie  only  lact  of  interest  which  it  states, 
628 


CHAP.  XX  ]  AUSTIN — BANCROFT.  [§  19^>. 

that  of  the  difficulty  of  getting  a  quorum  of  tli(3  recess  coiniuittce  ap- 
l>()inted  iu  the  i)rior  autumn  by  Congress,  is  introduced  by  tlie  words, 
"As  your  lordsliip  has  probably  heard." 

These,  with  the  exception  of  a  trivial  memorandum  on  the  French 
laiiti'oii  (ish  oil,  dated  September  2,  178G,  are  the  only  communications 
trom  Bancroft  to  British  officials  on  record,  and  these  are  not  only  from 
their  structure  irreconcilable  with  the  assumption  that  he  made  them 
as  a  British  diplomatic  agent,  but  they  are  in  substanre  just  what  we 
would  su}>pose  to  have  been  written  by  one  who,  loyal  to  the  American 
cause  during  the  war,  was  asked  by  Fox,  when  proposing  to  visit  Amer- 
ica after  the  peace,  to  report  as  to  the  attitude  of  America  on  the  sub- 
ject of  reciprocity  with  Great  Britain.  There  is  no  word  said  as  to 
tampering  with  the  old  tory  element,  as  would  have  been  the  case  had 
he  been  an  emissary  sent  to  sow  disaffection.  If  the  writer  tells  about 
the  then  loss  of  character  of  Congress,  and  the  spirit  of  insubordination 
rife  in  the  States,  this  is  no  more  than  was  said  in  all  the  newspapers 
of  the  time,  and  was  a  matter  of  public  notoriety.  He  refers  indeed  on 
one  occasion  to  information  derived  from  Jefferson,  and  through  him 
from  Madison  and  Patrick  Henry,  but  this  information  is  of  a  character 
calculated  to  strengthen  rather  than  weaken  the  United  States  in  the 
opinion  of  England.  It  is  true  that  when  Bancroft  returned  to  England 
and  found  the  Fox-North  ministry  overthrown  and  Pitt  in  power,  he 
suggested  the  probable  effect  of  non-intercourse  in  bringing  about  a 
reconciliation  of  the  commercial  States  with  the  mother  country.  But 
this  suggestion  was  only  made  to  be  at  once  dismissed  as  untenable, 
and  the  commnnication  closes  with  a  recommendation  of  entire  reci- 
procity with  the  United  States  as  the  policy  most  promotive  of  the  in- 
terests of  both  countries.  These  are  the  only  communications  made  by 
Bancroft  to  the  British  Government,  and  though  made  after  the  peace, 
they  contain  views  whose  drift  is  not  materially  different  from  that  of 
the  correspondence  at  the  same  time  of  Washington,  of  Madison,  of 
Morris,  and  of  Hamilton.*  It  may  be  that  other  papers  may  come  to 
light  which  may  show  treachery  on  the  i)art  of  Bancroft  during  the 
Revolution,  but  the  letters  just  cited  do  not  supply  such  proof. 

It  remains  to  consider  the  charge  that  Bancroft,  and  back  of  him  it 
is  intimated  Franklin,  used  diplomatic  secrets  for  the  purpose  of  stock 
gambling  in  London.  (Jf  this  charge  we  have  two  specifications.  The 
first  is  that  Bancroft's  secret  intelligence  of  the  capitulation  of  Burgoyne 
was  thus  corruptly  used.  The  story,  as  coming  originally  from  Arthur 
Lee,  and  as  repeated  by  Donne,t  is  that  when  the  news  of  this  capitu- 
lation was  brought  to  Passy  by  Austin,  who  came  as  a  special  mes- 
senger from  Boston  for  this  purpose,  the  commissioners,  together  with 
Bancroft,  William  Lee,  and  Beaumarchais,  were  assembled  at  Passy  to 


*  See  infra,  ^  209  ff.  ;  and  also  index,  title  Washington.  Madison,  Morris. 
t  2  Correspondence  George  III  and  Lord  North,  94. 

G29 


§196]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XX. 

bear  the  dispatches,  aud  that  immediately  after  they  ware  read  Ban- 
croft hurried  off  to  Loodou  (with  Franklin's  connivance  it  is  intimated) 
to  sell  the  news  in  the  best  way  he  could.  And  this,  it  is  intimated,  he 
succeeded  in  doing.  Now,  if  it  should  appear  that  the  news  of  Bur- 
goyne's  capitulation  had  reached  London  before  Bancroft  could  possiblj^ 
have  arrived  there  after  the  Passy  meeting,  and  that  this  must  have 
been  expected  by  him,  this  charge,  so  far  as  any  corrupt  action  is  con- 
cerned, falls.  As  this  question  is  one  which  involves  the  integrity  of 
Bancroft,  and  in  the  most  charitable  view  the  sagacity  and  fidelity  of 
Franklin,  the  following  details  bearing  on  it  deserve  study : 

On  November  7,  1777,  Horace  Walpole  thus  writes  to  Mann  :  * 

''Of  what  there  is  uo  doubt  is,  this  cheek  Burgoyne  has  received,  and  the  distress  of 
his  army,  that  tbe  last  accounts  left  in  danger  of  being  starved.  There  have  been 
.accounts  of  his  recovering  the  blow,  but  I  cau  not  find  one  person  who  believes  that. 
In  one  word,  it  is  a  very  serious  moment;  and  without  greater  views,  the  misery  of 
so  many  who  Lave  relations  and  friends  both  in  Howe's  and  Burgoyne's  armies  is 
terrible.  It  is  known  that  the  latter  bad  twenty-six  officers  wounded;  and  as  their 
names  are  not  come,  ten  times  the  number  may  be  suflFering  the  worst  anxiety.  The 
distance  of  the  war  augments  its  borrors  almost  as  much  as  its  expense,  and  makes  it 
grow  every  day  more  irksome." 

On  December  4,  to  the  same  correspondent,  he  says:  t 

*'0n  Tuesday  night  [December  2]  came  news  from  Carleton  at  Quebec,  which 
indeed  bad  come  from  France  earlier,  announcing  the  total  annihilation  (as  to  Amer- 
ica) of  Burgoyne's  army." 

In  Hutchinson's  Diary  (2,  168)  we  have  the  following  entries : 

'^December  1,  1777. — Almon  tells  me  this  morning  a  vessel  is  arrived  at  Nantes  from 
Charlestown ;  sailed  19th  October;  advises  the  total  loss  of  Burgoyne's  army  and 
tbe  distressed  state  of  Howe's.  I  think  Almon  wishes  it  may  prove  true,  as  do  too 
many  out  [of]  opposition  to  administration.     *     *     * 

"3.  Going  into  tbe  city  I  met  Mr.  Watson,  who  gave  me  tbe  first  account  of  a 
ship  from  Quebec  with  advice  of  the  surrender  of  Burgoyne  and  his  army. 

^'4.  Tbe  papers  this  morning  all  agree  in  the  arrival  of  the  fTanricfc  man-of-war, 
wbich  sailed  the  2d  of  October  from  Quebec,  and  that  Burgoyne's  army  laid  down 
tbeir  arms  after  baving  been  some  days  witbout  provisions.  It  is  said  that  they  are 
to  be  sent  home;  tbat  Fraser  is  killed,  with  eight  bundred  men  out  of  a  thousand, 
with  which  he  attempted  to  make  way  through  an  infinite  number  of  provincials." 

Of  John  Loring  Austin,  who  brought  to  Franklin  official  information  of 
the  surrender,  an  interesting  memoir  is  in  the  Boston  Monthly  Magazine 
for  July,  1826,  a  publication  now  very  rare,  a  copy  of  which  is  in  the 
Congressional  Library.  From  this  memoir,  which  evidently  came  from 
Austin's  family,  relying  on  his  own  statements,  the  following  passage 
is  taken : 

"As  soon  as  the  official  dispatcbes  of  tbe  surrender  of  General  Burgoyne  could  be 
prepared  Mr.  Austin  sailed  with  tliem  from  Boston,  wbicb  port  he  left  on  tbe  last  day 
October,  1777.  *  >  *  Xbe  packet  and  tbe  young  man  were  both  preserved  and 
arrived  safe  at  Xautea  on  the  last  daij  of  Noremher  following.  The  commissioners  had 
assembled  at  Dr.  Franklin's  apartments  on  tbe  rumor  tbat  a  special  messenger  batl 
arrived,  and  were  too  impatient  to  suffer  a  moment's  delay.     They  received  him  in 


7  Cnnningham's  Walpole,  6.  Md.,  10. 

630 


I 


CHAP.  XX.]  AUSTIN BANCROFT.  [§  196. 

the  court-yard.  Before  be  had  time  to  ali<;ht  Dr.  Franklin  addressed  liim:  'Sir,  is 
Pliiladelpliia  taken?'  'Yes,  sir.'  The  oUl  «^(!ntleinan  chisped  liis  liands  and  returned 
to  the  hotel.  *  But,  sir,  I  have  greater  news  than  that ;  (Jcncral  JUir(juyiie  aud  his  whole 
army  are  prisoners  of  war.'  The  effect  was  electrical.  The  dispatches  were  scarcely 
read  before  they  were  put  under  copy.  Mr.  Austin  was  himself  impressed  into  the 
service  of  transcribing  them.  Connnunication  was  without  delay  made  to  the  French 
minister." 

Nautes  is  two  buudred  and  ten  miles  west-southwest  from  Paris.  As  is 
stated  by  Stormoiit,  in  a  letter  hereafter  given,  Austin  reached  Nantes 
on  Monday,  December  1,  and  even  on  the  most  rapid  traveling  he  coidd 
not  have  reached  Passy  before  Wednesday,  December  3.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  he  did  not  arrive  there  until  Thursday,  December  4,  as  appears 
from  the  following  entry  in  Arthur  Lee's  journal  under  that  date: 

"Mr.  Austin  arrived  with  dispatches  from  Congress  at  Yorktown,  in  Pennsylvania, 
whither  they  had  removed  on  the  evacuation  of  Philadelphia,  of  which  General 
Howe  took  jjossession  on  the  26th  of  September.  The  express  left  Boston  the  30th  of 
October,  aud  brought  the  account  of  the  surrender  of  Burgoyne  and  his  army  at 
Saratoga,  on  the  17th,  prisoners  of  war,  after  ho  had  been  beaten  out  of  his  camp 
iutreuchments.  Aud  of  the  battle  of  Germantown,  on  the  4th,  by  General  Washing- 
ton, in  which  he  was  by  mistake,  in  a  fog,  obliged  to  retreat,  after  having  routed  both 
wings  of  the  enemy.  The  commissioners  sent  inmiediately  an  express  to  Versailles, 
and  Mr.  Lee  wrote  to  the  Spanish  ambassador  aud  the  Prussian  secretary  of  state, 
an  account  of  this  important  news."  * 

The  dates  then  speak  as  follows  : 

October  13,  1777. — Burgoyne  calls  his  commanders  of  corps  in  council  aud  a  cdpitil= 
lation  is  unanimously  agreed  on. 

October  17. — Convention  of  capitulation  signed. 

October  19. — Vessel  sails  from  Charlestown  for  Nantes,  advising  total  loss  of  Bur- 
goyue's  army.  As  the  news  by  this  vessel  was  in  London  on  December  1,  according 
to  Hutchinson,  she  must  have  arrived  at  Nantes  about  November  27. 

October  31. — Austin  sails  from  Boston  with  official  dispatches,  arriving  at  Nantes 
December  1. 

November  1. — Walpole  writes  that  Burgoyne  is  in  great  distress. 

November  24. — Ship  JVarivick,  Captain  Montroy,  which  sailed  from  Quebec  on  Oc- 
tober 28,  arrived  at  Spithead,  and  in  a  letter  from  Portsmouth  of  November  24  it 
is  stated  that  "  the  captain  immediately  set  off  express  for  London,  and  it  is  reported 
that  General  Burgoyne  is  taken  prisoner  with  his  whole  army.  No  iutercouraeis  per- 
mitted with  his  ship." 

November  29. — The  London  Chronicle  states  that  by  a  letter  which  came  yesterday 
by  the  French  mail  it  was  stated  "  as  a  certain  fact  that  General  Burgoyne  had  in  an 
engagement  with  Arnold  suffered  a  severe  defeat." 

December  1. — Hutchinson  is  informed  by  Almon  of  the  total  loss  of  Burgoyne's 
army;  news  coming  via  Charlestown. 

December  2.  — Captain  Montroy  arrived  at  the  admiralty  "with  the  melancholy 
advice  of  General  Burgoyne  with  his  whole  army  being  made  prisoners  of  war."  t 

December  3. — Barr<S,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  on  reference  to  the  uews  published 
December  2,  inquired  of  the  ministry  as  to  what  had  become  of  Burgoyne,  and  Norlh 
admitted  that  very  disastrous  information  had  come  through  Canada,  but  as  yet 
nothing  official,  t 

*  1  Arthur  Lee's  Life,  357.  t  London  Chronicle,  Dec.  2-4,  1777. 

t3Shelburne'sLife,  12. 

(i3L 


§  196.]  DIPLOMATIC    COliRESPONDENCE  [CHAP.  XX. 

Dec(mhe)'  3 — Hiitcliiuson  hears  of  arrival  of  ship  from  Quebec  giving;  advice  of 
Bnrj^oyno's  surrender. 

December  4, — Austin  arrives  at  Passy  with  dispatches,  and  finds  the  commissioners 
there  assemhledwaUing  for  him. 

Austin's  account  of  Lis  arrival  at  Passy,  it  must  be  remembered, 
was  uot  a  contemporaneous  entry  by  himself,  as  were  the  notes  of  Wal- 
j)ole  and  Hutcbinson,  but  was  published  after  his  death,  many  years 
after  the  event  of  wliich  it  treats,  and  was  probably  derived  by  memory 
from  his  conversations.  That  he  was  the  first  bearer  of  an  official  re- 
l)ort  of  the  capitulation  who  reached  Franklin  is  the  point  of  his  state- 
ment. This  i^riority  of  official  announcement  is  not  inconsistent  with 
the  arrival  some  days  before  at  Nantes  of  a  Charlestown  vessel  bring- 
h\(y  the  same  news  unofficially,  since  it  is  plain  from  the  Austin  state- 
ment that  the  commissioners  had  such  a  foreshadowing  of  the  im- 
portance of  the  news  to  be  expected  that  they  were,  on  Austin's 
arrival,  anxiously  awaiting  him.  As,  on  December  1,  the  capitulation 
was  known  in  London,  through  France,  the  informal  know^ledge  of  it 
must  have  reached  Franklin  at  least  by  November  30.  If  Bancroft 
was  meditating  stock -jobbing  in  London  on  fiiith  of  the  news  he  would 
have  set  ofi'  for  London  as  soon  as  the  news  was  received.  So  far  from 
doing  so,  he  waited  at  Passy  not  only  until  Austin's  arrival  on  De- 
cember 4,  but  until  the  dispatches  brought  by  Austin  had  been  copied. 
Assuming  Bajicroft  to  have  been  the  shrewd  intriguer  and  speculator 
he  is  assumed  to  Jbe,  he  must  have  known  on  December  4  that  the  news 
which  had  reached  Nan.tes  on  November  27  would  have  reached  Lon- 
don before  he  could  arrive  there.  And  such  was  undoubtedly  the  case. 
The  capitnlation  was  known  in  London  on  December  1,  when  Bancroft 
was  still  at  Passy.* 

The  copies  of  tlie  home  correspondence  of  the  British  legation  at 
Paris,  deposited  among  the  Sparks  Papers  at  Harvard  College,  gives 
us  additional  information  to  the  same  effect.  On  December  6  Stor- 
mont, 'British  minister  at  Paris,  writes  to  Weymouth,  British  secretary 
of  state,  that  he  has  received  information  of  Burgoyne's  surrender,  and 
communicating,  among  other  matter,  a  copy  of  a  paper  of  Franklin, 
^'  embodying  the  substance  of  letters  from  Congress  which  left  Boston 
October  31  and  reached  Nantes  December  1."  As  Arthur  Lee's  secre- 
tary was  a  British  spy,  it  may  be  easily  conjectured  in  what  way  this 
paper  of  Franklin  reached  Stormont. 

It  is,  at  first  sight,  very  remarkable  that  when,  on  December  8,  1777, 
the  commissioners  addressed  a  memorial  to  Vergennes,  urging  recogni- 
tion from  France,  they  did  not  say  a  word  in  reference  to  the  Saratoga 


*  The  Daily  Advertiser  of  Tliursday,  Dccemher  4,  1777,  contains  an  extract  of  a 
loiter  from  Portsmouth,  Dec.  2  (Tuesday),  announcing  Burgoyne's  surrender.  It 
therefore  took  two  days  for  the  news  which  reached  Sj)ithead  on  Tuesday  to  be  dis- 
seminated in  London.  A  journey  from  Paris  to  Loudon  could  not  have  consumed  less 
than  four  days. 

632 


CHAP.  XX.]  AUSTIN BANCROFT.  [§^^G- 

cai)itulatioii,  wliicli  had  sucli  a  marked  l)earinf>ou  the  issue  of  rocogni 
tion,  while  on  December  9  Arthur  Lee,  iu  a  letter  to  Aranda,  iiich)sing 
a  copy  of  tliis  memorial  and  askinii"  recof>nition  from  Spain,  is  equally 
silent  as  to  the  capitulation.  The  biograplier  of  Arthur  Lee  (his 
nephew,  who  had  access  to  all  his  memoranda),  after  giving  these  two 
letters,  proceeds  to  say  that  ''  a  few  days  after  the  presenting  of  the 
above  memorial  to  the  Count  Yergennes  intelligence  of  the  surrender 
of  Burgoyue  reached  the  commissioners.  Tliey  immediately  laid  it 
before  the  French  court,  and  Mr.  Lee  acquainted  the  Spanish  ambassa- 
dor with  the  grateful  information  of  that  event"*  This  statement  of 
diite  is  a  manifest  error,  as  appears  by  the  extract  from  Lee's  journal 
above  quoted,  which  is  printed  in  the  same  volume.  And  iu  the  same 
journal  are  the  following  entries  under  date  of  December  6  and  8, 
1877: 

"  6tli.  Mods.  Gerard,  first  secretary  to  Count  Vergennes,  mot  the  commissiouers  at 
Passy.  tie  said  he  came  from  the  Counts  Maurepas  and  Veigenues  to  cougratuhite 
the  commissioners  upon  the  news,  to  assure  them  of  the  great  pleasure  it  gave  at 
Versailles,  and  to  desire  on  the  part  of  the  king  any  farther  particuhirs  they  might 
have.  He  was  informed  that  extracts  were  making  from  all  the  papers,  wliich  should 
be  sent  the  moment  it  was  furnished  ;  and  Mr.  L.  promised  to  send  extracts  from  his 
brother's  letters,  which  contained  some  further  particulars.  Mr.  Gerard  *  *  *"  said 
fis  there  now  appeared  no  doubt  of  the  ability  and  resolution  of  tbe  States  to  maintain 
their  Independency,  he  could  assure  tbcm  it  was  wished  they  would  reasume  their 
former  proposition  of  alliance,  or  ;iny  new  one  they  might  have,  and  that  it  could 
not  be  done  too  soon.  *  *  *  Dr.  Franklin  undertook  to  draw  up  a  memorial,  as 
Mr.  Gerard  desired,  and  Mr.  L.  was  to  attend  next  day  to  consult  upon  it.     *     *     " 

"  8th.  Signed  the  memorial  to  Count  Vergennes  desiring  an  immediate  considera- 
tion of  the  treaty  that  had  been  proposed,  and  seut  it  by  young  Mr.  Franklin,  with 
extracts  from  various  American  papers  relative  to  the  operations  against  Burgoyno's 
army."  t 

Of  the  letters  announcing  the  event  to  the  French  court  and  to  Schu- 
lenberg  we  have  no  record;  but  a  letter  from  Schulenburg  to  Arthur 
Lee  of  December  18,  1777,  to  be  hereafter  given,  contains  the  follow- 
ing: 

''  I  learned  by  the  letter  yon  did  me  tho-^honor  to  write  on  the  ith  of  this  month  that 
these  advantages  (Howe's  advance)  are  more  than  balanced  by  tlie  surrender  of 
General  Burgoyne." 

Arthur  Lee  also,  in  a  letter  to  Samuel  Adams  of  December  18, 1777,  f 
speaks  of  ^'the  authentic  accounts  which  reached  luo^t  2)arts  of  Europe 
about  the  same  time,  the  beginning  of  this  mouthy  of  Burgoyne''s  surrender,''^ 
etc. 

It  is  clear  therefore  that  Austin  arrived  at  Passy  and  delivered  his 
papers  on  J3ecember  4,  and  i)robable  that  the  omission  of  the  commis- 
sioners to  notice  the  capitulation  in  their  letter  to  Vergennes  of  Decem- 
ber 8  is  to  be  explained  by  their  having  previously  announced  it  in  a 


1  Arthur  Lee's  Life,  113.  t  Ibid,  357,  358.  t  Tbid.,  114. 

633 


§  196.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XX. 

letter  dow  lost.     But,  however  this  may  be,  it  is  clear  that  the  news  of 
the  surrender  did  not  reach  London  through  Bancroft.* 

Bancroft  was  at  Paris  on  January  22, 1778,  and  hearing  of  Arthur  Lee's  charges  as  to 
his  coinmnnicating  the  Saratoga  news,  he  then  wrote  a  letter,  now  among  the  Sparks 
MSS.  at  Harvard,  resenting  with  great  spirit  this  charge  and  declaring  its  baseless- 
ness;  and  tliis  was  followed  up  by  a  letter  from  him  on  February  9,  1778.  Arthur 
Leo,  in  fact,  seems  to  have  been  convinced  of  the  injustice  of  the  charge,  for  in  a  letter 
to  Richard  H.  Lee  of  February  5^  1778,  now  in  the  University  of  Virginia  collection,  be 
declares  that  ou  *^  further  information  "  received  by  him  he  exonerates  Bancroft  from 
the  charge  of  disloyal  disclosures.  Such  disclosures  were  undoubtedlj^  made,  but 
they  were  made  by  Arthur  Lee's  own  treacherous  secretary,  Thornton,  who  placed, 
as  we  will  see,  iu  the  hands  of  the  British  ministry  copies  of  the  commissioner's  let- 
ters to  Vergennes  of  December  8,  1777,  and  to  Congress  of  December  18  and  19,  1777,  t 
and  from  whom,  probably,  Stormont  received  the  information  communicated  by  him 
in  his  letter  to  Weymouth,  already  noted,  of  December  6. 

The  other  specification  relates  to  the  alleged  corrupt  disclosures  by 
Bancroft  in  London  of  the  French-American  treaty  of  February,  1778.1: 
As  to  this  it  ma}'  be  remarked  as  follows :  (1)  As  early  as  January  30, 
1778,  when  Bancroft  was  at  Passy,  Weymouth,  British  secretary  of 
state,  wrote  to  Grantham,  minister  at  Madrid,  that  there  "is  good  rea- 
son to  suspect  that  a  treaty  is  forming  and  perhaps  concluded  between 
the  French  court  and  the  Americans  in  rebellion."  § 

(2)  As  early  as  January  5,  1778,  Hutchinson  ||  speaks  of  the  Duke  of 
Manchester  having  a  letter  from  France  announcing  a  treaty  with  the 
United  States.  And  on  February  18, 1778,  '^  it  is  said  the  French  have 
actually  entered  into  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  them  (the  United 
States)  as  independent  States."^ 

(3)  On  February  17,  according  to  Horace  Walpole,  Lord  I^orth  "  was 
asked  (by  Fox)  '  if  he  did  not  know  that  the  treaty  between  the  Ameri- 
cans and  France  is  signed.'  He  would  not  answer  till  Sir  George 
Saville  hallooed  out :  *An  answer,  an  answer,  an  answer.'  His  lordship 
then  rose,  could  not  deny  the  fact,  but  said  that  he  did  not  know  it 
officially;  that  is,  I  suppose  it  does  not  stand  on  the  votes  of  the  Parlia- 
ment at  Paris."** 

To  this  it  is  added,  in  a  note,  that  Fox  stated,  "  My  cousin,  Thomas 
Walpole,  had  acquainted  me  that  the  treaty  with  France  was  signed." 
As  we  hear,  in  the  correspondence  above  quoted  of  George  Ilf ,  of  letters 
from  Bancroft  to  Thomas  Walpole  being  -'intercepted,"  and  in  this  way 

*  See  2  Parton's  Franklin,  284,  where  it  is  said  that  Austin  reached  Passy  in  "a 
chaise,"  and  that  a  rumor  i)receded  him  of  his  arrival,  so  that  "the  circle  of  official 
Americans"  had  time  to  get  out  to  Passy  to  meet  him.  This  precludes  the  idea  of 
very  great  precipitancy  of  travel. 

t  See  infra,  ^  207. 

tTliis  charge  is  expressly  made  by  Richard  H.  Lee  in  a  letter  to  Arthur  Lee.  (Lee 
MSS.,  30  South.  Lit.  Mess.  11.) 

^S Sparks  MSS.,  Harvard  College;  Bancroft  MSS. 

II  2  Diary,  175. 

H/rf.,  186. 

**  Walpole  to  Mason,  Feb.  18,  1778;  7  Cnnnin^^ham's  Walpole,  31. 

031 


I 


CHAP.  XX.]  AUSTIN I3ANCR0FT.  [§  196. 

reaching  the  king,  we  have  an  inkling  of  the  way  in  which  Thomas  Wal- 
pole  was  iufornied  of  the  treaty.  If  through  Bancroft,  the  information 
was  given  under  Franklin's  advice  for  communication  to  the  leaders  of 
the  whig  opposition. 

(4)  The  sole  evidence  brought  to  sustain  the  charge  is  a  statement 
made  April  11, 1778,  by  "  Mr.  Livingston,"  that  he  had  seen  a  letter  from 
Dr.  Bancroft  to  Mr.  Wharton  (an  American  banker  in  London)  "  inform- 
ing him  that  he  might  depend  upon  it  he  had  it  from  the  very  best  au. 
thority  that  the  treaty  with  the  court  of  France  was  to  be  signed  on  the 
5th  or  6th  of  February,  and  desiring  him  to  make  his  speculations  accord- 
ingl}^,  or  words  to  that  eftect."  *'  Mr.  Livingston"  aj)pears  to  have  been 
the  captain  of  au  Anierican  ship,  who  had  some  business  relations  with 
Paul  Jones,  and  Jones  naturally,  in  view  of  the  immense  stake  involved, 
took  upon  himself  immediately  to  investigate  the  charge.  He  had  an 
interview  with  Livingston  on  the  subject,  and  he  learned  that  Living- 
ston's "certificate"  was  given  in  Paris,  to  ward  off  the  suspicions  then 
existing  implicating  Arthur  Lee  and  Izard  in  the  disclosure.  He  then 
made  further  inquiries,  the  result  of  which  he  gives  in  a  letter  to  Liv- 
ingston dated  Nantes,  March  13,  1779,*  in  which  he  states  that  "  Mr. 
Wharton,"  to  whom  Bancroft  is  said  to  have  communicated  the  infor- 
mation, "  declared  he  would  make  oath  that  he  never  received  any  letter 
or  information  whatever  from  Dr.  Bancroft  on  the  subject  of  your  cer- 
tificate [as  to  such  treaty],  until  after  the  publication  of  the  treaty 
between  France  and  America."  There  is  nothing,  it  is  true,  incon- 
sistent with  this  letter  in  the  statement,  current  ar  the  time,  that  Ban- 
croft had  been  losing  money  by  dabbling  in  the  English  funds.  But 
this  statement  rests  on  no  reliable  authority ;  and  the  charge  that  he 
lost  money  by  such  investments  involves  no  such  dexterity  in  the  use 
of  secret  intelligence  as  would  follow  from  an  abuse  of  his  privileges  as 
Franklin's  friend. 

There  are  some  considerations  which  are  entitled  to  great  weight  in 
determining  this  vexed  issue  of  Bancroft's  fidelity  to  his  American  em- 
ployers. Vergennes  had  a  secret  police  which,  for  activity  and  intelli- 
gence as  well  as  for  the  ])owers  with  which  they  were  charged,  could 
not  be  surpassed.  No  one  knew  better  than  he  how  enormous  was  the 
stake  depending  on  Bancroft's  trustworthiness.  From  Arthur  Lee 
came  warning  after  warning  that  Bancroft  was  a  British  emissary,  that 
he  sold  diplomatic  secrets  in  the  London  market. t    Vergennes'  atten- 

*MSS.  Coug.  Lib. 

t  That  Bancroft  did  not  shirk  this  issue  appears  from  bis  letters,  already  cited,  of  Jan. 
22,  and  Feb.  9, 1778,  to  Arthur  Lee,  in  which,  in  tones  of  strong  resentment,  he  calls 
upon  Lee  to  prove  the  charges  so  made.  (See  MSS.  Harvard  College.)  On  March  31, 
1778,  Bancroft,  in  a  letter  to  Congress  (MSS.  Department  of  State),  defined  his  position 
squarely,  saying  that  the  publication  by  Congress  of  his  connection  with  the  legation 
bad  made  it  perilous  for  him  to  go  to  England,  and  necessitated  his  remaining  in 
France.  In  France  he  remained  during  the  greater  part  of  the  war,  an  avowed 
American  agent,  presenting  himself  in  this  attitude  to  the  criticism  of  France  and  the 
hostility  of  English  agents. 

635 


§  19G.]  DIPLOMATIC    COBRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XX. 

tioii,  uiuler  tbese  circumstaiiees,  nmsfc  have  been  closely  given  to  Ban- 
croft j  every  step  Bancroft  took  inust  have  been  watched,  every  letter 
he  trusted  to  the  mail  examined.  Yet,  with  this  opportunity  of  thor- 
oughly acquainting  himself  with  Bancroft's  character  and  doings,  and 
with  the  immense  importance  of  the  interests  involved  stimulating  him 
to  tht'  most  rigid  scrutiny,  we  find  Vergennes  not  only  sanctioning, 
from  Deane's  arrival  in  1775  to  1783,  Bancroft's  intimate  connection 
with  the  American  legation,  but  bestowing  on  him  special  marks  of 
l)ersonal  confidence.  He  sent  Bancroft  to  Ireland  on  a  confidential 
mission  to  report  on  the  temper  of  Irish  malcontents.*  When  Ban- 
croft visited  Nantes  and  reportv^d  himself  dogged  by  British  detectives, 
Vergennes  ordered  to  his  aid  special  French  detectives.  If  Bancroft 
was  himself  a  British  spy,  he  succeeded  for  eight  years  in  concealing 
his  true  character  from  a  police  the  most  sagacious  and  ubiquitous, 
and  from  a  minister  who  had  the  unlimited  use  of  this  police,  who  was 
himself  a  patient  and  cautious  student  of  character,  and  who  knew 
how  vital  it  was  to  his  country  and  to  himself  that  disloyalty  such  as 
that  imputed  to  Bancroft  should  be  summarily  dealt  with.f 

Franklin  had  the  benefit  of  Vergennes'  police  information,  and,  in 
addition  to  this,  Franklin  was  in  the  closest  intimacy  with  Bancroft, 
employing  him  on  the  most  delicate  confidential  missions,  and  in  this 
way  opening  to  him  the  innermost  recesses  of  the  legation.  Franklin 
was  a  keen  observer  of  character,  as  well  as  of  diplomatic  and  political 
actions;  yet  Franklin,  as  we  have  seen,  retained  his  confidence  in  Ban- 
croft to  the  end,  and  even  after  Bancroft  had  decided  to  elect  England, 
after  the  peace,  as  his  home,  gave  him,  when  visiting  the  United  States, 
affectionate  letters  of  commendation. 

Jefferson,  when  in  the  French  mission,  received,  as  to  Bancroft,  the 
views  both  of  Franklin  and  Vergennes.  And  we  find  Jeiferson|  going 
out  of  his  way,  in  a  business  letter  from  Paris,  to  assure  Bancroft  of 
his  "  sincere  and  great  esteem  and  attachment." 

During  the  peace  negotiations  in  the  fall  of  1782  Adams  and  La  Fay- 
ette frequently  met  Bancroft  at  Passy  or  at  dinners  diplomatic  or  semi- 
diplomatic.  Adams  not  only  was  bj"  no  means  disposed  to  look  chari- 
tably upon  Franklin's  particular  associates,  but  knew  of  Arthur  Lee's 
charges  against  Bancroft  in  1778;  yet  Adams,  when  recording  in  his 
journal  his  meeting  Bancroft  at  a  dinner  at  which  the  terms  of  peace 
were  discussed,  says  not  a  word  intimating  that  Bancroft  was  undeserv- 
ing of  the  confidence  thus  bestowed  on  him.  Had  Adams  even  sus- 
])ected  this,  his  straightforward  honesty  would  have  at  once  sounded 
the  alarm.  The  same  may  be  said  also  of  La  Fayette,  to  whose  chival- 
ric  temper  perfidy  was  inexpressibly  odious,  and  who  not  only  had  many 


*  See  Ridley's  Jour.,  Sparlis  MSS.,  Harvard  College,  vol.  52,  No.  1.,  p.  32. 
tBotli  in  1781  and  in   1782  Verj^enaes  in  his  correspondence  expresses  his  confi- 
dence iu  B;incroft. 
t  March,  2,  1789. 

636 


CHAP.  XX.]  AUSTIN BANCROB^r.  [§1^6. 

opportunities  of  meeting  Bancroft,  but  who  knew  whatever  the  French 
court  knew  as  to  Bancroft's  course  in  France. 

Thomas  Walpole,  a  descendant  of  the  tirst  Lord  Walpole  and  a 
nepliew  of  the  great  Sir  Robert,  was  an  advanced  wliig;  had  as  a  mem 
ber  of  Tarliament  taken  strong  American  ground;  was  of  a  character 
singulalry  generous  and  high  toned;*  was  possessed  of  wealth  so  great 
as  to  be  beyond  pecuniary  temptation,  and  had  notonly  beenaconsistent 
friend  of  Bancroft,  but  was  the  person,  according  to  Horace  Walpole,  to 
whom  Franklin  communicated  important  incidents  which  it  was  desirable 
to  have  made  public  in  England.  That  through  Bancroft  this  intelligence 
reached  Walpole  we  may  gather  from  a  letter  of  George  111,  alreaily 
quoted.  Aud  Walpole,  had  he  conceived  Bancroft  was  playing  him 
false  and  was  all  that  time  a  government  spy,  would  have  spurned  him 
from  his  presence. 

But  in  order  to  believe  that  Bancroft  was  such  a  spy,  we  have  to 
believ^e  that  he  was  so  consummate  an  artist  in  treachery  as  for  seven 
critical  years,  w^hen  he  was  in  the  full  glare  of  police  observation  as 
well  as  of  shrewd  personal  inspection,  not  only  to  have  deceived  Ver- 
gennes,  Franklin,  Adams,  and  Walpole,  but  to  have  imposed  upon  the 
heads  of  the  very  government  for  which  he  was  working.  George  III, 
as  we  have  seen,  speaks  of  him  as  an  American  not  to  be  trusted, 
who  wrote  '•  intercepted"  letters  to  Walpole,  and  whose  talk  when  in 
London  was  got  up  for  American  purposes  in  order  to  mislead  England. 
Stormont  calls  him  a  ^'  rebel."  And  Thornton,  who  we  now  know  was 
a  British  spy,  was  set  to  work  to  try  to  effect  Bancroft's  removal  from 
Paris,  if  not  his  expulsion  from  France.  It  is  of  course  possible  that 
Bancroft  was  a  traitor,  employed  by  secret  agents  of  the  British  foreign 
office  without  the  knowledge  of  the  king  or  of  Lord  North.  But  if  so  it 
is  extraordinary  that  such  employment  should  have  eluded  the  knowl- 
edge not  only  of  Vergennes  and  Franklin,  but  of  George  III  and  Lord 
North,  whose  correspondence  shows  how  closely  they  inspected  what- 
ever they  could  glean  from  British  spies.  And  it  seems  equally  extraor- 
dinary that  one  branch  of  the  British  Government  should  seek,  as  did 
Thornton's  employers,  to  destroy  the  usefulness  of  the  most  effective  of 
the  agents  of  another  branch  of  that  government. 

One  more  element  in  this  difficult  case  remains  to  be  noticed.  Those 
who  read  the  very  interesting  collection  of  the  correspondence  of  John 
Paul  Jones,  as  on  file  in  the  Congressional  Library,  will  be  struck  with 
the  large  share  occupied  in  it  by  Bancroft.  Letters  from  Bancroft  to 
Jones  are  comparatively  rare,  as  Jones  does  not  seem  to  have  scrupu- 
lously preserved  letters  he  received.  But  it  is  otherwise  as  to  letters 
he  sent  out,  and  of  these  we  find  in  the  congressional  collection  the 
following,  to  which  attention  may  properly  be  called: 

Jones  to  Bancroft,  August  14,  August  24,  September  23,  September 

*  See  infra,  ^  20^, 

637 


§  1U6.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XX. 

30,  October  4,  October  7,  October  15,  November  11,  December  18,1778  5 
March  0,  1779;  Jauuary  IG,  June  27,  July  17,  1780. 

These  letters  cover  some  the  most  critical  epochs  iu  Jones'  eventful 
career;  and  in  reference  to  his  proposed  plans  for  sudden  surprises  of 
British  shipping  and  descent  on  Scotch  towns  they  disclose  the  details 
of  his  plans,  state  the  armament  and  supplies  he  required,  and  implore 
Bancroft's  agency  in  obtaining  for  him  such  assistance  from  the  French 
ministry  and  from  Franklin,  Jones  was  at  that  time  the  most  danger- 
ous enemy  Britain  had  on  the  high  seas.  By  his  stealth,  his  coolness, 
his  amazing  fighting  qualities,  he  had  not  only  inflicted  great  loss  by 
the  prizes  he  had  seized,  but  he  had  compelled  a  large  naval  force 
to  be  retained  for  home  defense  and  had  trebled  the  current  rates  of 
insurance  of  merchant  ships.  In  addition  to  the  remarkable  gifts  thus 
possessed  by  him  as  a  naval  commander  he  was  a  singularly  good  judge 
of  character,  though  tending  sometimes  to  undue  distrust.  Had  Ban- 
croft been  in  British  pay  he  could  at  once  have  put  a  stoj)  to  Jones' 
career  by  disclosing  the  plans  of  his  next  cruise;  had  Jones  suspected 
him  of  this  perfidy,  either  by  finding  that  his  plans  leaked  out  or  by 
receiving  extraneous  proof  of  Bancroft's  double  dealing,  swift  and  terri- 
ble would  have  been  the  vengeance  that  followed ;  for  in  such  cases 
Jones  did  not  stay  his  hand.  But  so  far  from  this  being  the  case,  letters 
of  confidence  and  affection,  of  information,  of  supplication  for  aid,  con- 
tinue to  be  addressed  to  Bancroft  with  increasing  fervency  as  long 
as  Jones  was  in  Ameiican  or  French  service.  Many  of  them  are  in 
cipher  which  defies  translation.  But  from  what  is  decipherable  we 
find  them  displaying  throughout  entire  trust  and  strong  regard.  And, 
as  if  summing  up  his  opinion  of  Bancroft,  we  find  a  letter  from  Jones 
to  Oarmichael,  dated  at  L'Orient,  August  9,  1780,  in  which  is  the  fol- 
lowing: 

"  I  cannot  conclude  tliis  letter  without  expressing  ray  earnest  wisli  to  bear  of  your 
being  on  terms  of  confidential  intimacy  with  Bancroft.  You  know  liis  great  abilities, 
and  I  am  much  iristaken  if  be  has  not  a  great  and  good  heart." 

A  letter  from  Bancroft  to  Jones,  dated  February  23,  1779  (Cong  Lib.  MSS.),  con- 
tains the  following : 

''F.  [Franklin]  has  written  to  Mr.  Hartley  to  obtain  a  protection  to  my  going  to  and 
returning  from  England  safely.  If  it  comes,  I  shall  immediately  set  out  and  endeavor 
to  do  what  I  can  for  you." 

After  some  information  as  to  the  chances  of  Jones  procuring  cannon,  the  letter 
goes  on  to  say  : 

*'C.  Dist.  [D'Estaiug]  has  blundered  about  in  the  West  Indies  so  as  to  permit  the 
British  fleet  and  troops  tliere  to  take  St.  Lucia,  witbout  having  Iiimself  done  any- 
thing, wbich  is  mo.->t  vexatious.  The  news  is  hushed  up  here  as  yet,  but  can  not 
long  be  kept  quiet." 

He  then  asks  for  information  as  to  English  prisoners  taken  by  American  cruisers, 
which  ''will  be  necessary  if  I  go  the  journey." 

From  this  we  learn  that  Bancroft,  before  this  proposed  trip  to  England,  sought  a 
safe-conduct,  to  be  obtained  through  Hartley,  then  a  leader  of  what  was  called  the 
American  party  in  the  House  of  Commons,  a  part^'  which  was  said  to  be  more  strongly 
American   than   were  the  Americans   theuiselves,  and  who  would  have  as  angrily 

638 


CHAP.  XX.]  AUSTIN BANCROFT.  [S^  i^^. 

resented  the  imposition  on  them  of  a  ministerial  spy  as  would  Americans  themselves. 
This  particular  errand  was  desi<;ned  for  the  purpose  of  relievin<»'  Americans  imprisoned 
in  England.  But,  in  view  of  Bancroft's  connection  with  Hartley  and  Thomas  Wal- 
pole,  it  is  impossible  not  to  view  his  errand  as  having  a  general  political  bearing. 
Nor  can  we  comprehend,  wdien  we  remember  Hartley's  character  for  sincerity  and 
for  worth,  that  he  would  have  taken  this  means  of  conlidcntial  communication  with 
one  whom  he  had  the  faintest  reason  to  suspect  of  being  a  ministerial  spy. 

The  following  extracts  illustrate  the  relations  of  Jones  and  Bancroft :  * 

"I  count  too  much  on  your  affection  to  suppose  even  for  an  instant  that  you  have 
not  felt  for  my  nnhappy  situation"  (from  want  of  means  to  go  to  sea.) 

''I  have  seen  yourt  letter  to  Dr.  F.  of  the  4th  instant,  and  have  been  since  labor- 
ing to  the  ntmost  to  remove  the  difficulties  which  appeared  likely  to  retard  your 
departure.  I  am  assured  that  the  100,000  livres  to  bo  divided  amongst  those  who  go 
ont  with  you  in  the  Alliance  on  account  of  their  prize  money  will  certainly  be  forth- 
coming at  L'Orient  and  distributed.  *  *  *  j  hope  that  you  will  be  able  to  sail 
by  the  end  of  next  w^eek.  I  write  in  great  haste,  as  you  will  perceive,  and  even  can 
only  assnreyon  of  my  nualterable  affection  and  devotion." 

On  July  17,  1780,  Jones  implores  Bancroft  to  aid  him  in  the  settlement  of  the  prize- 
money  claims  of  the  men  on  the  Bon  Homme  Richard  and  the  Alliance,  "  or  my  credit  in 
America  will  bo  undone  in  the  opinion  of  the  seamen ;  and  even  here  what  can  I 
expect  less  than  a  second  revolt.  *  *  *  The  further  the  war  advances  the 
more  I  fancy  I  see  the  benefit  that  would  rssnlt  from  such  services  as  I  have  pro- 
posed," and  he  then  urges  Bancroft's  aid  to  obtain  supplies  from  the  French  author- 
ities. 

While  the  use  of  ciphers  in  this  correspondence,  of  which  the  ke3'  is 
now  lost,  shows  us  its  confidential  character,  it  prevents  us  from  know- 
ing the  secret  instructions  as  conveyed  by  Bancroft  under  which  Jones 
acted. 

(5)  The  most  singular  paper,  however,  bearing  on  this  issue  is  one 
recently  (1888)  brought  to  light  by  i>oniol|  in  liis  third  volume,  pub- 
lished in  1888,  where  he  states  that  there  is  now  in  the  French  foreign 
office  a  paper  in  Yergenues'  hand,  indorsed  "  Extrait  d'une  lettre  de  M. 
Arthur  Lee  a  Md  Shelburne,  ecrite  imm6diatement  apres  la  signature 
du  traite  entre  la  France  et  les  Totals- Qnis  de  PAmerique."  In  this  ex- 
tract Lee  informs  Shelburne  that  the  treaty  is  about  to  be  signed,  and 
that  England  will  have  to  hurry  if  she  would  break  the  alliance  between 
the  United  States  and  France.  This  memorandum  not  only  helj)S  to 
explain  Vergenues'  uniform  distrust  of  Arthur  Lee,  but  shows,  if  the 
copy  be  correct,  that  Arthur  Lee  personally  sent  immediate  intelligence 
of  the  signing  of  the  treaty  to  England.  That  copies  of  the  treaty, 
and  of  the  correspondence  relative  thereto,  were  in  the  hands  of  Thorn- 
ton, his  secretary,  and  by  the  latter  probably  furnished  to  Stormont, 
and  that  some  of  this  correspondence  certainly  passed  from  Thornton 
to  the  British  archives,  is  elsewhere  noticed.  And  in  this  connection 
it  must  be  remembered  that  William  Lee  also  comes  on  the  stage  as  an 
alleged  divulger  of  the  treaty  ;  a  charge  of  this  kind  being  the  occasion 
of  a  proposed  duel  to  which  he  was  to  have  been  a  party.    The  truth, 

*  Jones  to  Bancroft,  Jan.  IG,  1780.  t  Bancroft  to  Jones,  April  15,  1780. 

t  Doniol,  iii,  H5'J. 

039 


§  196.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XX. 

however,  probably  is  that  there  was  no  divulgiDg  of  the  treaty  by  any- 
body in  such  a  way  as  to  make  an  opportunity  for  stock-jobbing. 
After  the  steps  France  had  taken  in  receiving  the  American  ministers 
and  granting  the  in  aid,  a  treaty  on  her  part  was  a  necessity. 

I  have  gone  with  what  I  fear  is  much  tediousness  into  the  question 
whether  Edward  Bancroft  was  a  ''  double  spy,'^  because  I  felt  that  if  he 
were  so  this  would  involv^e  grave  imputations  on  at  least  the  sagacity 
and  the  vigilance  of  Franklin,  of  Vergennes,  of  Paul  Jones  as  well 
in  a  minor  degree  of  Jefferson,  of  La  Fayette,  of  John  Adams,  of 
Thomas  Walpole,  all  of  whom  gave  Bancroft  their  confidence.  Sustain- 
ing the  charge  of  this  double  treachery,  we  undoubtedly  have  the 
authority  of  our  great  historian,  Mr.  George  Bancroft,  who  is  followed 
by  Doniol  in  his  exhaustive  and  thorough  work,  already  frequently 
cited.  It  may  be  tbat  documents  may  hereafter  be  brought  to  light 
which  may  fasten  on  Bancroft  the  perfidy  charged  against  him.  But 
with  the  information  now  before  us  we  must  make  choice  between  the 
following  hypotheses  as  to  Bancroft's  course  during  the  Kev^olution : 

(1)  He  communicated,  under  Franklin's  direction,  such  information 
to  reliable  English  friends  as  it  was  considered  desirable  to  have  in 
this  way  disseminated. 

(2)  In  his  visits  to  London,  in  the  earlier  days  of  the  Revolution,  he 
mixed,  no  doubt,  with  the  American  London  colony,  and  in  that  colony 
there  was  a  gossiping  group  of  true  men  and  false.  We  learn  that 
busy  among  them  was  Paul  Wentworth,  who  was  undoubtedly  under 
British  pay;  and  Digges,  of  whom  we  shall  learn  more  hereafter,  was 
there,  black  in  heart  and  insidious  in  tongue.  These  men,  directly  or 
indirectly,  may  have  heard  what  Bancroft  had  to  say,  and  have  re- 
ported it  to  their  British  employers.  Bancroft,  all  authorities  agree, 
was  a  man  of  kindly  temper,  and  not  overcautious  in  his  talk.  He  was 
not  trained  to  diplomacy,  and  he  did  not  pretend  to  be  a  diplomatist ; 
if  the  letters  we  have  from  him  and  the  references  to  him  above  given 
are  to  be  relied  on,  he  was  ingenuous  as  well  as  enthusiastic  in  his  main- 
tenance of  the  cause  in  which  he  was  enlisted ;  much  that  he  said 
might  in  this  way  be  caught  up  and  reported  to  British  officials.  And 
these  letters  from  him,  as  we  have  already  seen  was  the  case  witli  a 
letter  of  his  to  Thomas  Walpole,  might  have  been  intercepted,  and 
he  might  in  this  way  have  been  placed  in  the  position  of  an  involuntary 
informer. 

(3)  It  is,  however,  possible  that  he  may  have  been  one  of  those  secret 
and  masked  spies  employed  by  subofficials  of  Britain  of  whose  very 
names  the  officials  in  chief  were  kept  in  ignorance,  and  who  in  the 
official  reports  are  designated  by  ciphers  or  by  fictitious  names.  This 
is  the  only  hypothesis  imputing  guilt  to  Bancroft  wliich  is  consistent 
with  the  ignorance  of  George  III  and  of  Lord  North  of  the  fact  that 
he  was  under  their  emplo3\  It  may  hereafter  appear,  on  the  unearth- 
ing of  the  secret  service  papers  of  the  British  foreign  office,  that  this 

640 


CHAP.    XX.]  .  AUSTIN BANCROFT.  [§  190. 

was  really  Bancroft's  position.  But  if  it  be  so,  ho  [)i'esents  a  case  of 
which  history  affords  no  parallel.  To  believe  him  guilty  of  such 
atrocious  and  yet  ex(iuisitely  subtle  perfidy  we  niU8t  believe  that,  in- 
genuous, simple-hearted,  and  credulous  as  he  appeared  to  the  general 
observer,  occupying  to  Franklin  and  to  America  a  position  not  unlike 
what  Boswell  did  to  Johnson  and  Corsica,  though  with  certain  scientific 
aptitudes  to  which  Boswell  laid  no  claim  and  with  an  apparent  occa- 
sional heroism  of  which  Boswell  was  incapable,  he  was,  nevertheless,  a 
dissembler  so  artful  as  to  defy  the  scrutiny  of  Franklin,  with  whom  he 
was  in  constant  intercourse;  an  intriguer  so  skillful  as,  without  money 
or  power,  to  deceive  Yergennes  and  tlie  multitudinous  police  with 
which  Yergennes  encircled  him  ;  a  villain  so  profoundly  wary  as  to  win 
the  confidence  of  Paul  Jones,  professedly  aiding  him  in  desperate  secret 
raids  on  the  British  coast,  and  yet,  by  an  art  almost  unfathomable,  re- 
serving the  disclosure  of  these  secrets  to  British  officials  until  a  future 
day  which  never  came;  a  double  traitor,  whose  duplicity  was  so  masterly 
as  to  be  unsuspected  by  the  British  court,  which  held  him  to  be  a  rebel ; 
and  by  such  men  as  La  Fayette,  as  John  Adams,  as  Jefferson,  who 
regarded  him  as  a  true  friend.  This  amusing  combination  of  ap- 
parently absolutely  inconsistent  characteristics  may  exist  in  bewilder- 
ing harmony  in  the  character  of  Edward  Bancroft;  but  such  a  phenom- 
enon should  not  be  believed  to  exist  without  strong  proof. 

641 
41  WH 


CHAPTER  XXL 

ENGLISH  INTERMEDIARIES. 
General  characteristics.  §  I97.    Jn  considering    the   claSS   Of  pCFSOnS   whom 

we  now  approach  it  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  down 
to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  allegiance  to  the  British  crown  was 
formally  acknowledged  in  America  as  well  as  in  England.  There  were 
those  in  England,  including  some  of  the  most  eminent  of  Englishmen, 
who  held  that  the  country  to  whicli  their  patriotism  was  devoted  in- 
cluded America  as  well  as  England,  and  they  looked  upon  a  separation 
with  pain  on  account  not  only  of  the  war  to  which  it  would  lead,  but 
of  the  rupture  of  country  it  involved,  and  of  the  peril  to  English  lib- 
erty it  would  bring.  By  multitudes  in  America  the  separation  was  for 
the  same  reasons,  though  with  greater  intensity,  dreaded ;  for  however 
necessary  it  might  be  deemed,  they  regarded  it  not  merely  as  tearing 
asunder  a  country  which  they  loved  as  a  whole,  but  as  expatriating 
them  from  England,  which  they  regarded,  with  all  its  faults,  as  the 
home  from  which  their  language,  their  literature,  their  most  cherished 
institutions,  their  own  forefathers,  if  not  themselves,  had  come.  Men 
of  these  classes,  convinced  though  they  might  be  that  if  the  British 
Government  persisted  in  its  course  separation  would  come,  and  differ- 
ing as  they  might  as  to  the  i)ortion  of  the  country  they  would  adhere 
to  after  the  separation,  would  very  naturally  join  in  any  movement  of 
accommodation  which  might  make  separation  less  imperative  or  more 
amicable.  Such  men  might  be  likened  to  those  who  on  the  eve  of  the 
late  civil  war  met  for  peace  conferences  at  Washington,  and  who  after- 
wards, when  war  came,  were  found  some  on  one  side  and  some  on  the 
other  of  the  contest.  Yet,  while  this  was  the  case,  there  can  be  no 
question  that  the  men  engaged  in  these  peace  conferences  were  thor- 
oughly and  even  passionately  in  earnest  in  their  desire  to  avert  war. 
The  same  also  may  be  said  of  Horace  (Hreeley  and  others,  who,  with 
entire  loyalty  to  their  flag,  sought  to  bring  about  a  pacific  settlement 
during  the  struggle.  As  influenced  by  similar  motives  of  humanity 
may  be  mentioned  several  British  subjects  who  during  the  Kevolution 
endeavored,  sometimes  it  may  be  with  the  assent  of  George  III  and  of 
North,  sometimes  on  their  own  motion,  to  approach  Franklin  with  the 
object  of  inducing  him  to  consent  to  an  accommodation  short  of  inde- 
pendence. 

642 


CHAP.  XXI.]  ENGLISH    INTERiMEDl ARIES.  [§1^7. 

Of  the  position  of  intermediaries  of  this  class  we  have  the  following 
discriminating  notice  b^'  an  intelligent  historian  : 

"Under  the  surface  the  while,  and  known  only  to  those  directly  concerned  therein 
were  covert  attempts  on  the  part  of  En^jland  to  open  comnuinication  with  Franklin 
by  means  of  personal  friends.  There  liad  been  nothinj;-  but  the  recognition  of  our 
independence  that  England  would  not  have  given  to  prevent  the  alliance  with  France; 
and  now  there  was  nothing  that  she  was  not  ready  to  do  to  prevent  it  from  accomplish- 
ing its  purpose.  And  it  adds  wonderfully  to  our  conception  of  Franklin  to  think  of  him 
as  going  about  with  this  knowledge,  in  addition  to  the  knowledge  of  so  much  else  in 
his  mind — this  care,  in  addition  to  so  many  other  cares,  ever  weighing  upon  his  heart. 
Little  did  jealous,  intriguing  Lee  know  of  these  things;  j)etulant,  waspish  Izard  still 
less.  A  mind  less  sagacious  than  Franklin's  might  have  grown  suspicious  under  the 
influences  that  were  employed  to  awaken  his  distrust  of  Vergennes.  And  a  character 
less  firmly  established  would  have  lost  itshold  upon  Vergennes  amid  the  constant  efforts 
that  were  made  to  shake  his  confidence  in  the  gratitude  and  good  faith  of  America. 
But  Franklin,  who  believed  that  timely  faith  was  a  part  of  wisdom,  went  directly  to  the 
French  minister  with  the  propositions  of  the  English  emissaries,  and,  frankly  telling 
him  all  about  them  and  taking  counsel  of  him  as  to  the  manner  of  meeting  them,  not 
only  stripped  them  of  their  power  to  harm  him,  but  converted  the  very  measures 
which  his  enemies  had  so  insidiously  and,  as  they  deemed,  so  skillfully  prepared  for  his 
ruin,  into  new  sources  of  strength.*'    (Prof.  G.  W.  Greene,  15  Atlantic  Monthly,  586.) 

Of  the  attitude  in  1775-'76  of  the  whig  leaders  as  to  conciliation, 
Lecky  thus  speaks : 

"  Several  other  propositions  tending  toward  conciliation  were  made  in  this  session. 
On  March  22,  1775,  Burke,  in  one  of  his  greatest  speeches,  moved  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions recommending  a  repeal  of  the  recent  acts  complained  of  in  America  reforming 
the  admiralty  court  and  the  position  of  the  judges,  and  leaving  American  taxation  to 
the  American  assemblies,  without  touching  upon  any  question  of  abstract  right.  A 
few  days  later  Hartley  moved  a  resolution  calling  upon  the  government  to  make 
requisitions  to  the  colonial  assemblies  to  jjrovide  of  their  own  authority  for  their  own 
defense;  and  Lord  Camden  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  Sir  G.  Savile  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  endeavored  to  obtain  a  repeal  of  the  Quebec  act.  All  these  attempts 
however  were  defeated  by  enormous  majorities.  The  petition  of  Congress  to  the 
king  was  referred  to  Parliament,  which  refused  to  receive  it,  and  Franklin,  after  vain 
efforts  to  effect  a  reconciliation,  returned  from  England  to  America.  The  legislature 
of  New  York,  separating  from  the  other  colonies,  made  a  supreme  effort  to  heal  the 
wound  by  a  remonstrance  which  was  presented  by  Burke  on  May  15.  Though  strongly 
asserting  the  sole  right  of  the  Colonies  to  tax  themselves,  and  complaining  of  the 
many  recent  acts  inconsistent  with  their  freedom,  it  was  drawn  up  in  terms  that 
were  studiously  moderate  and  respectful.  It  disclaimed  'the  most  distant  desire  of 
independence  of  the  parent  kingdom.'  It  acknowledged  fully  the  general  superin- 
tending power  of  the  English  Parliament  and  its  right  '  to  regulate  the  trade  of  the 
Colonies  so  as  to  make  it  subservient  to  the  interests  of  the  mother  country,'  and  it 
expressed  the  readiness  of  New  York  to  bear  its  '  full  proportion  of  aids  to  the  crown 
for  the  public  service,'  though  it  made  no  allusion  to  the  project  of  supporting  an 
American  army.  The  government,  however,  induced  the  House  of  Commons  to  re- 
fuse to  receive  it,  on  the  ground  that  it  denied  the  complete  legislative  authority  of 
Parliament  in  the  Colonies  as  it  had  been  defined  bj'^  the  declaratory  act."  (3  Lecky's 
History  of  England,  422.)* 

It  must  be  remembered  that  a  section  of  the  English  opposition  out- 
Americanized,  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  war,  even  the  most  extreme 


See  also  supra,  ^  31,  as  to  position  of  English  whigs  in  respect  to  the  Revolution. 

643 


§  197.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

Americans.  In  America  the  character  of  George  III  was  prior  to  the 
Kevolutiou  regarded  with  that  respect  which  the  people  of  a  distant 
colony  would  be  likely  to  pay  to  a  monarch  with  whose  crown  they  had 
many  glorious  associations.  In  England  the  old  whig  families,  who  till 
his  reign  had  controlled  public  affairs,  regarded  him  with  anger  as  a 
quasi  usurper,  and  to  this  was  added  the  political  hostility  caused  by 
his  affection  for  Bute,  based  on  what  was  supposed  to  be  his  mother's 
guilty  preference  and  his  stupidly  arrogant  avowals  of  high  tory  senti- 
ments in  his  ordinary  talk.  The  personal  hatred  felt  for  him  by  at  least 
some  leading  Englishmen  of  the  day  will  be  seen  in  Junius'  letters  and 
in  the  correspondence  of  Eockingham,  Fox,  and  Burke.  We  have  there- 
fore in  England,  in  addition  to  the  political  oi)position  to  him  in  which 
American  liberals  joined,  a  personal  bitterness  to  him  which  was  not  felt 
in  America.  So  strong  was  this  feeling,  that  prominent  English  liberals 
did  not  hesitate  publicly  to  express  their  delight  at  America's  victories 
and  to  decline,  when  in  the  army,  to  join  their  regiments  when  on 
American  service. 

When  the  question  is  asked,  why  did  not  the  British  ministry  arrest 
men  of  this  class  when  corresponding  with  the  American  legation — a 
question  often  put  by  Hutchinson  and  other  refugees  in  England— the 
answer,  as  elsewhere  noticed,  is,  that  they  could  not  be  arrested  without 
arresting  almost  the  whole  whig  opposition.  Burke  and  Fox  openly 
proclaimed  their  correspondence  with  Franklin  ;  and  they  united  with 
Chatham  in  holding  every  "  British  and  Hessian"  victory  over  America 
was  a  victory  over  English  freedom,  and  in  publicly  giving  every  en- 
couragement to  the  American  insurgents.*  It  may  also  be  observed 
that  visits  to  Paris  of  'intermediaries'^  of  this  class,  pure-minded  men, 
whose  object  was  peace,  it  was  not  North's  policy  to  prevent.  What- 
ever the  king  may  have  thought,  the  greatest  wish  of  North  was  to 
effect  a  reconciliation.  Amiable,  easy,  with  no  talents  or  desire  for 
war,  and  gradually  growing  in  the  conviction  that  by  v»  ar  the  old  con- 
dition of  the  Colonies  could  not  be  restored,  so  far  from  desiring  to  stop 
the  friends  of  peace  from  visiting  Paris  or  corresponding  with  Franklin, 
he  no  doubt  wished  them  such  success  in  their  work  as  to  enable  them 
to  bring  back  such  terms  of  reunion  as  the  king  could  accept. 

Aside  from  those  English  "intermediaries"  who  continued  to  use 
their  good  offices  for  America  during  the  whole  of  the  war,  there  was  a 
large  class  of  persons  who,  both  in  England  and  the  United  States, 
withdrew  as  neutrals  as  soon  as  actual  war  began.  Precedents  for  this 
class  there  were  many  in  the  war  between  Charles  I  and  Parliament. 
Thus  of  Sir  John  Bankes,  chief-justice  of  the  common  pleas  in  those 
days,  Forster  t  tells  us : 

"He  was  a  respectable  lawyer,  of  honest  inteutious  and  very  limited  views,  who 
interfered  occasionally  with  good  effect  to  moderate  both  parties  until  both  became 

*  See  sajn-a,  ^  31,  32.  1 1  Historical  Essays,  243. 

044 


CHAP.  XXI.]  ENGLISH    INTI^RMEDIARIES.  [§197. 

committed  to  extTjnes ;  but  wlicn  tbo  sword  tiaslied  out  as  arbitrator  lio  tuiiiod 
aside  helpless  and  useless,  and,  dyinji;  whilo  yet  tho  victory  neither  way  inclined, 
he  seems  to  have  died  in  the  j^ersuasion  that  the  disfavor  of  Heaven  must  fall  heavily 
on  both,  and  that  both  woiihl  be  deserving  of  overthrow." 

Curwen  is  an  illustration  of  this  class  among  our  own  American 
loyalists.  He  saw  the  faults  of  both  sides  so  much  that  he  seemed  to 
wish  them  both  defeat.  Camden  also,  and  Grafton,  when  the  war  be- 
gan, withdrew  from  an  active  advocacy  of  the  American  cause;  and  such 
also  was  the  case  in  a  less  degree  with  Burke,  though  when  it  was  plain 
that  America  could  not  be  conquered,  he  took  the  lead  among  the  Rock- 
ingham whigs  in  insisting  on  an  acknowledgement  of  American  inde- 
pendence.* 

There  w^ere  not  a  few  also  of  this  class,  especially  in  America,  whom 
tho  war  seemed,  as  was  the  case  with  Falkland  during  the  English  civil 
war,  to  deprive  of  interest  in  life,  so  that,  as  Clarendon  tells  us,  "  from 
the  entrance  into  this  unnatural  war  his  natural  cheerfulness  and  vivac- 
ity grew  clouded";  and  that  only  ''when  there  was  any  overture  or 
hope  of  peace  [he]  whould  be  more  erect  and  vigorous";  so  that  at  last 
he  courted  death  on  the  battle-field  so  as  to  get  rid  of  battle. 

The  difference  in  1773  between  men  of  this  class  on  the  one  side  and 
Washington  and  Franklin  on  the  other  side  was  like  the  difference, 
before  the  English  civil  war  began,  between  Falkland  on  the  one  side 
and,  on  the  other,  Northumberland,  Holies,  Say  and  Scale,  and  Whar- 
ton, all  liberal  leadeis,  none  of  whom  viewed  with  other  than  a  sad 
reluctance  the  strife  which  was  about  to  begin,  none  of  whom  was 
eager  to  exaggerate  or  precipitate  the  quarrel.t 

Even  when  the  war  began  Essex  wrote  :  *'The  great  misfortunes  that 
threaten  this  kingdom  none  looks  upon  with  a  sadder  heart  than  I,  for 
in  any  particular  my  conscience  assures  me  I  have  no  ends  of  my  own 
but  what  may  tend  to  the  public  good  of  the  king  and  the  kingdom." 

Ko  one  now  doubts  the  loyalty  of  Essex  to  the  king  until  the  king 
became  himself  disloyal  to  England;  no  one  now  doubts  that  he  was 
forced  to  lift  his  sword  against  the  royal  forces  because  he  believed  that 
if  they  succeeded  England's  libel-ties  would  be  destroyed.  His  course, 
and  that  of  those  who  agreed  with  him  in  the  same  line,  exhibit  the 
same  distinction  as  we  find  in  the  lives  of  Washington  and  Franklin, 
sincere  in  their  expressions  of  loyalty  to  England  as  long  as  such  loyalty 
was  compatible  with  liberty,  and  when  it  was  not,  equally  sincere  and 
uncompromising  in  the  Revolution. 

Nor  ought  we  in  such  cases  to  forget  how  effective  mere  local  alle- 
giance may  be  in  determining  action  in  a  case  where  principle  is  in 
abeyance  and  where  there  are  strong  sympathies  on  both  sides.  This 
is  thus  strikingly  put  in  a  letter  in  1781  from  Burke  to  Franklin: 

"  You,  my  dear  sir,  who  have  made  such  astonishing  exertions  in  the  cause  which 
you  espouse,  and  are  so  deeply  read  in  human  nature  and  buman  morals,  know  better 

*  Supra,  §  :U.  t  Forster,  ut  sup.,  275. 

645 


§  198.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

than  anyhody  that  men  ivill,  and  that  sometimes  they  are  hound  to  take  very  different  ineivs 
and  measures  of  their  duty  from  local  and  professional  siiuaiions,  aud  that  we  may  all 
have  equal  merit  in  extremely  different  lines  of  condnct.  In  this  piece  of  experi- 
mental philosophy  I  run  no  risk  of  offending  yon.  I  apply  not  to  the  ambassador  of 
America,  but  to  Dr.  Franklin,  the  philosopher,  the  friend  and  lover  of  his  8i)ecies." 
(7  Franklin's  Works,  Bigelow's  ed.,  303.) 

B.vaugban.  §  198.  Benjamin  Yaughan,  the  fourth  *'son  of  Samuel 
Vaughau,  a  Loudon  merchant,  trading  with  America,  by  the 
daughter  of  a  Boston  (United  States)  merchant,  was  born  in  Jamaica  in 
1751,  aud  was  educated  at  Cambridge,  but,  beiug  a  Unitarian,  could  not 
graduate.  Private  secretary  to  Lord  Shelburne,  he  fell  in  love  with  Miss 
Manning,  but  her  father  withheld  his  consent  to  the  marriage  on  the 
ground  that  Vaughan  had  no  profession.  Thereupon  Vaughan  went 
and  studied  medicine  at  Edinburgh,  married  on  his  return,  and  became 
partner  with  Manning  &  Son,  merchants,  in  Billiter  Square.  He  acted  in 
confidential  peace  negotiations  with  America;  edited  a  London  edition 
of  Franklin's  works  and  wrote  a  pamphlet  on  international  trade,  which 
■was  translated  into  French  in  1789.  He  was  returned  for  Calne  at  a  by- 
election  in  February,  1792,  Lord  Shelburne  having  evidently  effected  a 
vacanc3^  for  him."* 

Benjamin  Vaughan,  being  an  enthusiastic  liberal,  became,  or  thought 
he  became,  implicated  in  a  correspondence  with  leading  French  revolu- 
tionists, and  in  1795,  fearing  arrest  in  England,  fled  to  France  and  after- 
wards to  Geneva.  In  France  his  ultra  democratic  principles  made  him, 
after  Kobespierre's  fall,  an  unwelcome  guest,  and  he  ultimately  came  to 
America,  taking  up  his  abode  in  Hallowell,  Maine,  where  in  his  declin- 
ing years  his  amiable  philanthropy  won  for  him  much  regard,  and 
where  he  founded  a  family  of  great  respectability.! 

At  the  time,  however,  of  his  employment  by  Jay,  while  his  philan- 
thropy and  honesty  were  unquestioned,  his  political  allegiance  was  to 
England  and  his  personal  allegiance  to  Lord  Shelburne.| 

At  Hallowell,  Maine,  where  he  settled,  "  he  resided  till  his  death.  His  mansion,  the 
*  White  Honse '  on  the  hill,  was  the  abode  of  hospitality.  It  was  furnished  in  a  costly- 
style,  but  simple.  He  had  a  fine  library,  supposed  to  contain  10,000  volumes,  and 
made  large  donations  of  books  to  Harvard  University  and  Bowdoin  College.  *  *  * 
Every  man,  woman,  and  child  looked  up  to  him.  He  was  the  magnate  of  the  place. 
In  religion,  education,  love  of  reading,  etc.,  he  gave  a  healthy  tone  to  societj^  He 
died  at  the  age  of  85."  (1  Life,  etc.,  of  Manasseh  Cutler,  26G,  where  a  visit  to  John 
Vaughan  in  July,  1787,  is  narrated  with  much  vivacity.) 

What  we  have  most  concern  with  in  the  life  of  Benjamin  Vaughan 
is  the  secret  mission  he  undertook,  on  Jay's  behalf,  to  Shelburne,  dur- 
ing the  pendency  of  the  peace  negotiations  in  Paris  in  1782.  Jay,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  suspected  Kayneval,  who  had  shortly  before  gone 
from  Vergennes  to  Shelburne  on  a  confidential  mission  from  Vergennes, 
of  intriguing  against  America's  interests  ;  and  this  suspicion  was  zeal- 
ously fanned  by  the  English  envoys  in  Paris,  from  one  of  whom  he  re- 

*  166,  Edinburgh  Review,  4.%.  t  Ibid.  t  See  suitra,  ^  158. 

646 


CHAP.  XX l]  ENGLISH    INTERMEDIARIES.  [§  198. 

ceived  the  alleged  Marbois  letter,  whose  authenticity  is  elsewhere  dis- 
cussed.* Jay,  without  consultiug  Franklin,  thou<;ht  it  desirable  to  send 
over  to  Shelburne  a  secret  agent  to  represent  the  American  cause  ;  aud 
as  agent  he  selected  Benjamin  Vaughau,  then  in  Paris  as  Shelburne's 
o\vn  conlidential  agent.  Jay  was  ignorant  of  this  relation  ofVaughan 
to  Shelburne,  which,  however,  aj)pears  from  the  following: 

"  I  have  read  the  two  letters  Lord  Shelburne  received  yesterday  from  France,  and 
shall  fairly  ownc  that  by  what  I  have  seen  from  the  correspondence  of  Mr.  Vaughan 
I  have  but  little  opinion  of  his  talents,  yet  it  confirms  my  opinion  that  Dr.  Franklin 
only  plays  with  us  and  has  no  intentions  fairly  to  treat,  which  the  negotiations  with 
Spain  at  that  time  too  strongly  shows.  Mr.  Oswald  seems  very  sensible,  aud  the 
present  letter  before  me  indicates  no  inclination  to  indiscretion."  (George  III  to 
Shelburne,  August  12,  1782,  Bancroft  MSS.) 

On  July  14,  1783,  Adams,  in  a  note  to  Livingston,  speaks  of  Benjamin  Vaughau  as 
"a  confidential  friend  of  my  Lord  Shelburne."     (8  J.  Adams'  Works,  99.) 

Vaughan's  mission,  however,  was  abortive,  not  only  because  when 
he  got  there  it  w^as  found  Rayneval  was  doing  nothing  for  Yanghan  to 
counteract,  but  because  George  III,  who  regarded  Franklin  as  up  to 
every  possible  deceit,  refused  to  believe  that  Vaughau  came  from  Jay 
alone,  and  maintained  that  the  mission  was  got  up  by  Jay  to  mask  one 
of  Franklin's  tricks.     We  gather  this  from  the  following: 

"The  dispatches  from  Mr.  Oswald  which  Mr.  Townshend  has  sent  me  fully  show 
that  all  Dr.  Franklin's  hints  were  only  to  amuse;  for  now  he  through  the  channel  of 
Mr.  Jatj,  allows  that  independence  can  not  be  admitted  as  sufficient  reason  for  Franco 
to  make  peace,  that  the  Dutch  and  Spaniards  must  also  be  satisfied  before  America  can 
conclude,  that  America  dislikes  Great  Britain  and  loves  France ;  yet  that  in  this 
strange  view  we  must  decideiUy  grant  independence  and  retire  all  troops  prior  to 
any  treaty,  consequently  give  everything  without  any  return,"  etc.  (George  III  to 
Shelburne,  August  21,  1782,  Bancroft  MSS.) 

Vaughau  continued  during  the  negotiations  in  British  employment. 

Thus  we  have  the  following  : 

''The  letter  of  Mr.  Vaughau  shows  that  Frauco  is  sincere."  (Same  to  same,  Novem- 
ber 22,  1782.) 

When,  however,  the  provisional  articles  were  signed  the  following 
note  was  sent : 

"  As  to  Mr.  Vaughau,  he  seeras  so  willing  to  be  active  aud  so  void  of  judgment, 
that  it  is  fortunate  that  he  has  had  no  business,  aud  the  sooner  he  returns  to  his  fam- 
ily the  better;  indeed  the  fewer  engines  are  employed  the  better,  and  those  of  the 
discreetest  kind."     (George  III  to  Shelburne,  December  22,  1782.) 

In  a  letter  from  Benjamin  Vaughau,  inclosed  in  a  note  from  John  Vaughau  to 
Sparks,  of  May  G,  1886  (Sparks' Collectiou,  Harvard  College,  vol.  52,  (1)  30()),  it  is  said: 

"Mr.  Jay  gave  to  me  two  businesses,  one  to  a  new  commission  for  Mr.  Oswald, 
which  I  obtained  in  an  instant,  and  the  other  to  counteract  Mr.  de  R.,  which  I  found 
utterly  needless,  and  did  not  bring  on  the  carpet."  To  this  Sparks  appeiuls  the  fol- 
lowing: "I  have  seen  the  original  instructions  from  Count  Vergenues  and  all  the 
correspondence  between  them  while  Rayneval  was  in  England,  aud  can  say  that  all 
the  suspicions  contained  in  the  foregoing  remarks  (as  to  Rayueval's  interfering 
against  the  United  States)  are  utterly  groundless."     But  Benjamin  Vaughan's  letter, 


See  supra,  $§  30,  158.     Index,  title  Marbois. 

647 


§  198.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE  [CHAP.  XXI. 

when  carefully  read,  expresses  no  '*  suspicion  "  of  Rayneval,  but  states  simply  that 
for  him  (Vaughau)  to  interfere  as  against  Rayneval  was  "  needless." 

"  Jay  had  too  high  ideas  of  Vaughan's  position  with  Shelburne."  (2  Hale's  Frank- 
lin in  France,  145,  citing  5  Bancroft,  rev.  ed,  567.) 

"  It  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  Shelburne  had  not  [implicit  confidence  in  Vanghan],  nor 
had  Franklin,  nor  anybody  else  concerned  in  the  matter  except  Mr.  Jay.  If,  there- 
fore, we  could  satisfactorily  account  for  Sholburne's  proceedings  without  reference 
to  Vaughan,  we  should  desire  to  do  so.  We  incline  to  think  that  he  would  have  sent 
the  commission  without  the  intervention  of  Vaughan,  for  Vaughan  told  him  nothing 
new,  except  that  Jay  was  well  disposed  to  the  English  and  Jealous  of  France.  *  *  * 
He  [Shelburne]  knew  that  the  commission  was  necessary,  for  he  had  been  assured  of 
it  in  the  most  emphatic  manner  by  Oswald,  in  whose  judgment  he  had  the  utmost  con- 
fidence. It  is  most  probable  that  he  had  determined  to  grant  it  before  Vaughan  ap- 
peared. *  *  *  It  is  hard,  after  carefully  reading  all  the  letters,  to  escape  the  con- 
clusion that  Mr.  Vanghan  was  a  well-meaning  man  of  very  great  vanity,  and  that  he 
unreasonably  imagined  himself  to  be  a  person  of  the  greatest  influence  and  importance. 
Franklin  and  Shelburne  were  each  anxious  to  assure  the  other  that  they  had  no  con- 
fidence in  him."     (2  Hale,  lit  supra,  147). 

That  Franklin  knew  that  Vaughan  was  Shelburne's  agent  appears  from  3  Shel- 
bnrne's  Life,  243,  257,  267;  and  had  Jay  consulted  Franklin,  he  would  have  been 
advised  of  Vaughan's  position. 

As  to  the  friendly  relations  between  Franklin  and  Vaughan,  see  Franklin  to 
Vaughan,  November  9,  1779 ;  March  5,  1785. 

In  the  last-cited  letter  Franklin  says  : 

''The  accounts  in  your  x>aper8,  fabricated  to  give  an  unfavorable  idea  of  America, 
such  as  speak  of  the  confusions  of  our  government,  the  tyranny  of  Congress,  the 
oppression  and  distress  of  strangers  among  us,  etc.,  these  may  be  thought  neces- 
sary bugbears  to  keep  your  people  from  emigrating  and  make  them  more  con- 
tent with  their  burdens  at  home.  They  may  keep  fools  from  us,  whom  we  do  not 
want.  But  when  I  wish  a  perfect  reconciliation  between  the  two  countries,  I  can 
not  but  regret  the  imprudence  of  those  members  of  your  Parliament  who  are  contin- 
ually discovering  in  their  public  speeches  the  rancorous  malice  they  still  bear  us. 

What  can,  for  instance,  Lord  St.  mean  by  repeatedly  abusing  the  Congress  as 

having  broken  their  faith.     I  do  not  know  a  single  instance  ;  and  I  am  silent  as  to  the 
breaches  of  English  faith.     I  hope  they  will  soon  be  repaired. 

"Adieu,  my  dear  friend,  and  believe  me  ever,  yours,  most  affectionately, 

''B.  Franklin." 

Samuel  Vaughau,  the  father  of  John,  Samuel,  Charles,  and  Benjamin  Vaughan, 
was  residing  in  Philadelphia  in  1787  with  his  son  John  Vaughan,  and  in  July,  1787, 
John  Vaughan,  the  father  being  temporarily  absent,  was  visited  by  Manasseh  Cutler, 
then  making  a  tour  in  the  interest  of  some  western  land  operations.  "I  had  letters," 
says  Cutler,"  "to  the  old  gentleman,  but  very  unfortunately  for  me  he  was  gone  on 
a  journey  into  the  Ohio  country.  The  young  gentleman  (John),  however,  received 
me  with  every  expression  of  warmest  friendship,  urged  me  to  take  lodgings  with  him, 
and  dismissed  all  business  to  devote  himself  to  me.  *  *  *  He  is  not  married,  and, 
since  his  mother  and  sisters  went  to  London  in  the  spring  with  his  brother  Samuel,  he 
and  his  father  keep  bachelors'  hall  in  a  very  elegant  home  in  Fore  [Front]  street. 
He  is  in  a  very  large  circle  of  trade,  in  partnership  with  another  young  gentleman." 
They  paid  a  visit,  during  which  "  Mr.  Vaughan  took  a  large  share  in  the  conversa- 
tion, and  with  his  easy  and  natural  pleasantry  kept  us  in  a  burst  of  laughter."  John 
Vaughan,  it  is  added  in  a  note,  was  for  sixty-five  years  secretary  of  the  American 

*  1  Cutler's  Life,  etc.,  266. 
US 


CHAP.  XXI.]  ENGLISH    INTERMEDIARIES.  [§§199,200. 

Philosophical  Society,  in  wlioso  li;ill  his  luctuio  uow  hangs.    There  arc  those  still 
living  (1888)  who  remcniber  the  gracions  h()Hi)itality  lie  for  many  years  dispensed. 

In  the  foUowing  correspoudtmce  John  Vaughau  api)ear8  as  having  songlit  to  take  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  before  Jay,  in  Way,  1781,  and  as  going  to 
America  in  January,  1782,  with  letters  from  Franklin  to  13ache, 

Hartley.  §  iQO.  With  David  Hartley  Franklin  liad  been  for  years 

ou  intimate  terms,  Hartley  being  somewhat  of  a  pbilosoplier, 
a  political  economist  of  the  school  of  Adam  Smith,  and  a  member  of 
Parliament.  Whether  Hartley's  ai)proaches  to  Franklin  were  on  his 
own  responsibility,  as  a  lover  of  peace  and  as  a  personal  friend,  or 
whether  he  was  prompted  to  intervene  by  the  British  Government,  is 
not  uow  clear.  However  this  may  be,  he  constantly  wrote  to  Franklin 
on  tlie  subject  ot*  conciliation,  and  Franklin  as  constantly  replied, 
lamenting  w^ar  on  general  principles,  but  saying  that  to  the  United 
States  war,  and  even  perpetual  war,  is  better  than  submission,  and 
that  however  variant  American  traditions  may  have  been  from  French, 
if  England  declared  war  on  France  on  America's  account  France 
would  not  be  deserted  by  America.* 

On  one  occasion  only  did  any  language  whicli  looks  like  an  authori- 
tative attempt  at  iniiuence  escape  from  Hartley,  and  this  was  on  April 
23,  1778,  when  he  wrote  as  follows : 

''If  tempestuous  times  should  come,  take  care  of  your  own  safety;  events  are  un- 
certain, and  men  may  bo  capricious." 

To  this  Franklin  gave  tlie  following  answer:  ^..^^ 

"I  thank  you  for  your  kind  caution,  but  having  nearly  finished  a  long  life,  I  set  but 
little  value  ou  what  remains  of  it.  Like  a  draper  when  one  chaffers  with  hini  for  a 
remnant,  I  am  ready  to  say,  '  as  it  is  only  the  fag  end,  I  wnll  not  differ  with  you  about 
it;  take  it  for  what  you  please.'  Perhaps  the  best  use  such  au  old  fellow  can  be  put 
to  is  to  make  a  martyr  of  him." 

Hartley's  commission,  by  Fox,  on  May  19, 1783,  as  negotiator  to  sign 
the  definitive  treaty,  was  as  much  a  tribute  to  his  personal  worth  as  it 
was  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  his  principal  claim  to  the  distinction 
was  his  long  friendship  with  Franklin. 

Oswald.  §  200.  The  character  of  Kichard  Oswald,  who  was  Shel- 

burne^s  representative  in  the  peace  negotiations  of  1782,  has 
been  discussed  in  another  v/ork.f  He  was  by  birth  a  Scotchman,  and 
by  marriage  and  purchase  had  acquired  considerable  estates  in  America. 
A  disciple  of  Adam  Smith,  he  had  won  the  esteem  of  Shelburne;  a  cor- 
respondent and  friend  of  Franklin,  he  was  selected  by  Shelburne  to 
negotiate  with  Franklin  as  to  the  peace.  His  letters  to  Franklin  on 
the  subject  are  hereafter  giveu.| 

*  See  Franklin's  letters  to  Hartley,  infra,  Oct.  3,  177,^) ;  Oct.  14,  1777  ;  Feb.  12,  1778; 
Apr.  23,1778;  Feb.  3,  1779;  May  4,  1770;  Feb.  4,  1780;  Juno  30,  1781  ;  Oct.  15,  1781; 
Jan.  15,  24,  1782;  Feb.  16,  1782;  Mar.  31,  1782;  May  13,  1782;  July  10,  1782;  Mar. 
13,  1783 ;  May  8,  1783. 

t3Int.  Law.  Dig.,  2d  cd,,  pp.  901-908. 

\  Index,  title  Oswald. 

C49 


§§  201,  202.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

Hutton.  ^  201«  eTames  Hutton,  a  Momviau  clergyman,  who  from  his 

interest  in  Moravian  missions  in  Pennsylvania  had  made 
Franklin's  acquaintance  in  London  and  whom  Franklin  greatly  es- 
teemed,* was  sought  out  by  Lord  North  as  a  proper  person  to  visit 
Paris  and  sound  Franklin  as  to  his  terms ;  and  this  office  Hutton  will- 
ingly undertook.  But  Franklin  was  not  to  be  moved  from  the  posi- 
tion he  had  assumed  both  as  to  independence  and  as  to  the  French 
alliance.  Anxious  not  to  be  misquoted,  he  addressed  to  Hutton  two 
remarkable  letters,  to  be  given  hereafter,  under  date  of  February  1, 
1778,  and  of  March  24,  in  the  same  year,  in  which  he  declared,  as  he 
did  to  Pulteuey,  that  peace  could  only  be  based  on  ])ropositions  made 
by  England  acknowledging  independence,  and  that  it  England  declared 
war  on  France,  then  there  could  be  no  peace  without  France.  In 
a  letter  to  Hartley  of  February  12,  1778,  Franklin  incloses  his  replies 
to  Hutton,  whom  he  calls  "an  old  friend  of  mine,  a  chief  of  the  Mo- 
ravians, who  is  often  at  the  queen's  palace  and  is  sometimes  spoken  to 
by  the  king." 

Of  this  Parisian  trip  of  Hutton  Horace  Walpole  thus  speaks : 

''Who  cau  believe  wliat  I  have  read  in  the  papers  to-day  ?— that  one  Hutton,  a  Mo- 
ravian, has  been  dispatched  to  Paris  to  tliug  himself  at  Dr.  Franklin's  feet  and  sue  for 
forgiveness  ?  It  is  said  that  the  n)an  fell  on  the  doctor's  neck  with  tears  and  implored 
peace.  What  triumph  on  one  side!  What  humiliation  on  the  other!"  (Horace  Wal- 
pole to  Mason,  February  18,  1778,  7  Cunningham's  Walpole,  o2.) 

Thomas  Walpole.  ^  902.  Thomas  Walpolc  was  a  grandson  of  Horatio, 

the  first  Lord  Walpole,  and  was  therefore  a  grand- 
nephew  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  Earl  of  Oxford,  and  a  cousin  of 
Horace  Walpole,  who  frequently  mentions  him  in  his  letters.  Thomas 
Walpole  was  a  banker  of  great  wealth  and  enterprise,  and  had  been 
with  Franklin  and  Samuel  Wharton,  one  of  the  principal  grantees  in 
what  was  called  the  Walpole  grant,  by  which  a  part  of  the  territory 
west  of  the  Alleghany  mountains  had  been  i^laced  in  the  hands  of  the 
grantees  for  colonization,  f 

The  grant  was  opposed  by  Lord  Hillsborough,  then  having  charge  of 
colonial  affairs  in  the  cabinet,  but  was  so  completely  vindicated  by 
Franklin,  that  Hillsborough  was  forced  to  resign.  The  Revolution,  how- 
ever, led  to  the  abandonment  of  the  grant.  Thomas  Walpole  was  for 
a  number  of  years  in  Parliament,  and  was  a  devoted  friend  of  America, 
doing  all  in  his  power  to  prevent  the  v/ar,  and,  when  it  began,  to  induce 
its  abandonment  and  the  acknowledgment  of  American  independence. 
His  intimacy  with  Franklin  continued  during  this  period  unabated,  and, 
besides  visiting  Franklin  in  Paris,  he  received  constant  communications 
from  him  through  Austin  and  Bancroft.| 

*  See  index,  title  Franklin. 

mee  supra,  $  189;  Hinsdale's  Old  Northwest,  i:J3-134-l;^9. 

t  The  impunity  attached  to  intermediaries  of  this  class  has  been  already  noticed 
supra,  ^  197. 

650 


CHAP.  XXI.]  ENGLISH    INTERMEDIARIES.  [§  202. 

In  a  letter  of  Thomas  WaTpole  to  Franklin  of  February  1,  1777,  he* 
thus  states  his  position  at  tliat  date: 

"  These  cousideratious  (waut  of  information  as  to  America)  are  of  small  importance 
compared  to  that  of  the  declaration  of  independence  extending  itself  not  only  to  the 
rennnciation  of  all  alleoianco  but  evon  to  all  connection  wit  li  this  conntry  in  pref 
erence  to  any  other.  Thiy  measure  so  taken  reduced  the  friends  to  the  liberties  of 
America  to  the  single  argument  of  resisting  the  war  against  her  upon  bold  considera- 
tions of  a  ruinous  expense  to  tlie  nation  in  prosecuting  a  plan  which  in  its  issue 
must  be  considered  as  very  uncertain."     (Franklin  MSS.,  Anier.  Philosoph.  Soc.) 

But  he  goes  on  to  say  that  he  would  think  no  office  too  mean,  nor 
any  endeavors  above  his  ambition,  which  would  tend  to  put  a  stop  to 
our  dreadful  civil  contentions. 

On  December  3,  1777,  he  speaks  of  his  own  sympathies  with  America, 
as  the  case  then  stood,  and  sends  friendly  messages  from  Chatham  and 
Camden. 

In  a  letter  to  Franklin  of  February  10, 1778,  Th@mas  Walpole  recites 
the  virtual  abandonment  of  the  enterprise  on  the  Ohio  Eiver  and  a 
final  settlement  of  the  accounts  with  Samuel  Wharton. 

In  1782  there  can  be  no  question  that  Walpole  visited  Paris  with  the 
assent  of  Fox,  then  secretary  of  state,  though  Walpole  was  in  error  in 
snpposing  that  he  had  by  this  request  any  power  given  to  him  to  nego- 
tiate.* 

But  Walpole,  in  a  letter  of  June  18, 1782,  to  Shelburne,  while  admit- 
ting that  he  had  no  express  authority  from  Fox  to  negotiate,  states 
that  he  believes  that  after  his  conversation  with  Fox  ''he  (Fox)  would 
not  have  named  another  person  unless  some  reason  had  been  suggested 
to  him  for  it;  and  I  understand  (not  from  Mr.  Fox,  but  from  very  good 
authority)  that  your  lordship  thought  me  an  improper  person  because 
I  was  upon  bad  terms  with  Dr.  Franklin.  I  employed,  therefore,  a 
common  friend  to  mention  this  to  the  doctor,  who  was  no  less  surprised 
than  myself  at  such  a  supposition."! 

Walpole,  as  is  elsewhere  noticed,  is  spoken  of  by  George  III,  on  October  31,  1780,  as 
communicating  '*  pacific  propositions,"  but  as  an  "avowed  enemy"  of  the  govern- 
ment.}: 

Of  Thomas  Walpole's  liberality,  as  well  as  of  his  close  relations  with 
Chatham  and  Camden,  the  following  illustration  may  be  giv^en :  Wal- 
pole had  purchased  from  Chatham  the  estate  of  Hayes,  which  Chatham, 
when  still  a  commoner,  had  greatly  adorned,  and  to  which,  in  17G7, 
when  his  health  broke  down,  he  greatly  desired  to  return.  Lady 
Chatham,  finding  this  morbid  desire  growing  on  her  husband,  wrote  to 
Walpole,  begging  him  to  sell  to  them  the  idace,  so  that  they  would 
once  more  breathe  the  accustomed  air. 


*  See   Shelburne  to  Oswald,  May  21, 1782,  infra;  Oswald  to  Shelburne,  June  12, 1782. 
t  As   to  his  interview  with  Franklin,  see  Franklin's  Journal,  infra,  under  date  of 
July  1,    1782. 
t  As  to  Walpole's  relation  to  Edward  Bancroft,  see  supra,  ^  190. 

651 


§  203.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

Mr.  Walpole,  it  seems,  had  himself  expeuded  a  considerable  sum  iu 
improviug  the  place,  and  had  become  as  attached  to  it  as  Lord  Chatham 
had  ever  been. 

*'  He  was  williu g,  be  wrote  back  to  Lady  Cbatbani,  to  remove  at  ouee  from  Hayes  with 
bis  family  and  place  it  at  tbe  earl's  disposal  during  the  summer  montbs;  but  graceful 
as  tbis  concession  was,  it  was  far  from  satisfying  tbe  invalid.  Not  only  did  tbe  dis- 
appointment render  bim  irritable  in  tbe  extreme,  but  bis  brotber- in-law,  James  Greu- 
ville,  describes  bis  language,  wben  be  spoke  to  bim  on  tbe  subject,  as  having  been 
even  'ferocious.'  Under  thesa  circumstances  Lady  Chatham  addressed  a  second  and 
still  more  pathetic  appeal  to  Mr.  Walpole,  who,  touched  by  her  arguments  and  entreat- 
ies, very  generously  consented  to  surrender  his  purcha-e.  'I  can  no  longer,'  be 
writes  to  Lord  Chatham,  'resist  such  affecting  motives  for  restoring  it  to  your  lord- 
ship, who  I  desire  will  consider  yourself  master  of  Ha^'es  from  tbis  moment.'  How 
deeply  distressed  he  was  at  making  the  concession,  his  friend,  Lord  Camden  has 
recorded.  *I  do  assure  your  ladyship,'  the  latter  writes  to  Lady  Chatham,  'I  have 
never  been  more  affected  with  any  scene  I  have  ever  been  witness  to  than  what  I 
felt  on  this  occasion,  and  am  most  sensibly  touched  with  Mr.  Walpole's  singular 
benevolence  and  good  nature.  The  applause  of  the  world  and  of  his  own  conscience 
will  be  his  reward.' "     (1  Jesse's  Memoirs  of  George  III,  397.) 

Walpole's  character,  as  above  exhibited,  is  important,  as  explaining 
not  merely  his  own  i)osition,  but  that  of  Bancroft.  Bancroft  was 
closely  allied  to  him,  being  his  agent  and  secretary  in  many  delicate 
matters  concerning  the  relations  of  the  colonies  to  the  mother  country. 
If  Bancroft  was  under  British  pay  it  is  difficult  to  acquit  Walpole  as 
well  as  Franklin  of  negligence  the  most  culpable  and  the  most  incredi- 
ble, when  we  take  their  opportunities  of  knowledge  into  consideration. 
The  only  tenable  hypothesis  is  that  heretofore  given,*  that  whatever 
communications  Bancroft  made  to  the  British  Government  were  made 
with  the  i)rivity  of  Franklin  and  Walpole. 

Puiteney.  ^  203.  In  the  same  class  with  Wali)ole  may  be  mentioned 
William  Puiteney,  also  a  member  of  Parliament,  and  a 
strenuous  advocate  of  reconciliation.  According  to  a  note  by  the  editor 
of  the  correspondence  of  George  III  with  Lord  North,  "  William  John- 
ston, a  descendant  of  the  Johnstons  of  Annandale,  was  the  elder  brother 
of  Governor  Johnston.  He  married  Frances,  only  child  of  Lieutenant- 
General  Puiteney,  brother  of  the  Earl  of  Bath.  The  earl  dying  without 
legitimate  issue  in  1704,  his  brother's  daughter  Frances  succeeded  to 
his  estates.  Johnston,  on  his  marriage,  took  the  name  of  Puiteney." 
He  was  a  friend  of  Franklin,  and  visited  Franklin  iu  Paris  in  1778  as  a 
sort  of  volunteer  informal  negotiator.! 

On  March  29,  1778,  Puiteney,  being  tlien  in  Paris,  addressed,  under 
the  assumed  name  of  Williams,  a  note  to  Franklin,!  asking  him  for  an 
interview ;  and  on  this  taking  place  he  made  to  Franklin  certain  propo- 
sitions looking  to  conciliation.     Oq  the  next  day  Franklin,  iu  order  that 


*  Supra,  §  196. 

t  See  2  Correspondence  of  George  III  with  Lord  North,  171. 

t  See  infra,  of  that  date. 

652 


CHAP.  XXI.]  ENGLISH    INTERMEDIARIES.  [§  203. 

there  sliould  be  no  inisapprebension  as  to  tlie  cluiracter  of  tlii«  inter- 
view, sent  a  note  to  Pulteney,*  in  whicli  lie  said  that  there  coiihl  be  no 
reconciliation  which  did  not  take  the  independence  of  the  United  States 
as  its  basis,  and  that  if  England  waited  to  make  this  acknowledgment 
nntil  she  was  at  war  with  France,  then  the  United  States  wonld  not 
treat  withont  France's  coucnrreuce.t 

It  being  afterwards  intimated  by  Arthur  Lee  that  there  had  been 
iujurious  concessions  made  by  Franklin  in  his  conference  with  Pnl- 
teney,  Franklin  was  able  to  show  b^^  the  papers  in  the  case  how  utterly 
unfounded  this  suspicion  was.  | 


*See  infra,  under  dale  of  March  30,  1778. 
tS<ic  ()  Franklin's  Works,  Bi<»clo\v's  ed.,  149. 
t  Franklin  to  Reed,  Mar.  ID,  1780,  infra. 

653 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

BRITISH  SPIES, 

Berkenhout.  §  204.  It  is  with  some  hesitation  that  Berkenhont  is 

l>laced  under  the  class  of  spies;  and  that  there  should 
be  strong  proof  that  he  is  justly  so  placed  is  an  illustration  of  the 
anomaly  we  sometimes  »eeof  men  absorbed  in  scientitic  studies,  and  of 
generally  urbane  and  benignant  temper,  having  in  them  a  tendency  to 
take  in  i)olitics  equivocal  steps  which  men  of  the  world  would  not,  ex- 
cept under  cover  of  peculiar  precautions,  think  of  taking.*  According 
to  the  notice  of  him  in  Leslie  Stephens'  Dictionary  of  Biography,  John 
Berkenhout  was  born  in  England  about  1730.  Atone  time  he  held  the 
rank  of  captain  in  the  Prussian  army,  from  which  he  resigned  in  1756 
to  accept  a  commission  in  the  English  service.  Subsequently  he  studied 
medicine  at  Edinburgh  and  Leyden.  He  was  the  author  of  several 
works  upon  medicine,  botany,  and  natural  history,  and  of  a  Biographi- 
cal History  of  Literature,  as  to  which  he  consulted  Horace  Walpole. 
In  1778  he  was  sent  by  the  British  Government  "  with  some  commis- 
sioners to  America.  Congress  would  not  allow  them  to  proceed  beyond 
New  York,  but  Berkenhout  contrived  to  reach  Philadelphia.  Here  he 
stayed  for  some  time  without  interference  on  the  part  of  the  authorities, 
but  at  length  suspicion  arising  that  he  was  tampering  with  some  of  the 
leading  citizens  he  was  thrown  into  i^rison.     After  effecting  his  escape 


*A8  to  Berkenhout's  correspondence  with  Arthur  Lee,  see  index,  ''  Berkenhout." 

In  the  Harvard  Collection  of  Arthur  Lee's  papers  are  the  following  letters  from 
Berkenhout  to  Lee : 

,  1777,  as  to  capture  of  the  ship  Fox  and  as  to  paper  money. 

In  February,  1778,  in  a  letter  without  further  date,  he  tells  Lee  of  a  pamphlet 
attack  on  Franklin,  gossips  in  a  friendly  way  as  to  English  political  parties,  and 
signs  himself  "Amico  Charissimo." 

Another  gossiping  letter,  dated  in  the  same  month,  signed  ''A  True  Born  English- 
man" and  indorsed  ''Berkenhout,"  is  among  the  Lee  papers  at  the  University  of 
Virginia. 

A  letter  from  him  to  Lee  of  December  25, 1778,  in  the  Harvard  Collection,  contains 
ambiguous  suggestions  as  to  peace,  and  is  signed  *'  Semper  eadem," 

Another  letter  of  February  ^8,  1779,  from  him  to  Lee,  which  is  in  the  Harvard  col- 
lection, is  couched  in  terms  so  enigmatical  that  it  is  difficult  to  take  in  their  mean- 
ing. 

654 


CHAP.  XXII.]  BRITISH    SPIES.  [§  204. 

or  release,  he  rejoined  the  commissioners  at  New  York,  came  back  to 
Eughiud,  and  was  rewarded  with  a  pension  for  liis  services.*  In  1780  he 
pnblished  *  Lncnbrations  on  AVays  and  Means,  inscribed  to  Lord  North,' 
a  proposal  for  the  imposition  of  certain  taxes.  Some  of  the  snggestions 
contained  in  this  pamphlet  were  adopted  by  Lord  North,  others  sub- 
sequently by  Pitt.  His  'Essay  on  the  Bite  of  a  Mad  Dog'  appeared 
in  1783;  'Symptomatology'  in  1784.  Berkenhout's  last  work  was 
'Letters  on  Education  to  his  Son  at  the  University,'  1700.  *  *  # 
Berkenhout  died  on  April  3,  1701,  at  Besselsleigh,  near  Oxford, 
Avhither  he  had  gone  for  change  of  air.  He  was  a  man  of  singularly 
versatile  abilities.  To  his  deep  knowledge  of  natural  history,  botany, 
and  chemistry,  was  joined  an  extensive  acquaintance  with  classical  and 
modern  literature.  He  translated  from  the  Swedish  language  Count 
Tessin's  letters  to  Gustavus  III  (Letters  from  an  Old  Man  to  a  Young 
Prince^  translated  from  the  Swedish,  1756).  He  was  familiar  with  the 
French,  German,  Dutch,  and  Italian  languages,  was  a  good  mathema- 
tician, and  is  said  to  have  been  skilled  in  music  and  painting.  In  ad- 
dition to  the  works  already  mentioned,  he  published  '  Treatise  on  Hys- 
terical and  Hypochondriacal  Diseases,  from  the  French  of  Dr.  Pomme,' 
1777.  In  1770  he  edited  a  revised  edition  of  Campbell's  'Lives  of  the 
Admirals.'  He  also  issued  proposals  for  a  History  of  Middlesex,  in- 
cluding London,  but  he  did  not  carry  out  his  project."  t 

Of  Berkenhout  the  following  notice  appears  in  2  Stone's  Eiedesel, 
41: 

'*  On  the  21si  of  September  (1778)  two  more  peace  commissioners,  Doctor  Berken- 
hout and  Mr.  Temple,  arrived  from  England.  The  latter  is  described  by  General 
Riedesel  as  very  indolent  and  careless,  but  the  former  as  an  exceedingly  active  and 
careful  man,  who  sought  to  do  his  duty  with  all  diligence.  Dr.  Berkenhout,  who 
acted  entirely  in  unison  "with  his  brother  commissioner,  the  newly  sent  Governor 
Johnson,  first  endeavored  to  make  the  acquaintance  of  influential  Americans,  especi- 
ally with  the  members  of  the  lower  courts,  those  having  the  most  influence  with  the 
different  classes  of  the  people.  This  was  done  by  hiui  with  the  object  of  influencing 
them  against  Congress,  and  thus  creating  a  division.  This  person  was  accused  of 
attempting  to  carry  out  his  designs  even  in  Philadelphia  ;  a  circumstance  which  so 
enraged  Congress  that  it  sent  the  English  peace  commissioner  to  the  peniten- 
tiary." 


*  Of  Berkenhout's  performances  in  Philadelphia,  Richard  H.  Lee,  in  a  letter  dated 
February  11,  1778,  thus  writes  : 

"The  man  was  a  perfect  stranger  to  me,  and  came  to  me  solely  on  the  ground  of  a 
former  acquaintance  with  my  brother.  I  received  him  civilly,  and  he  told  me  he 
came  to  seek  a  settlement  for  his  family,  and  asked  my  advice  where  he  sh'd  fix.  I 
gave  him  the  best  advice  I  could.  He  appeared  to  me  most  strongly  attached  to  the 
independence  of  America,  and  I  did  and  do  believe  him  to  have  been  honestly  so.  I 
do  not  think  we  changed  above  an  hundred  words  together,  for  I  was  too  much  en- 
gaged in  public  business.  He  was  arrested  on  no  other  ground  than  a  paragraph  in  an 
English  newspaper.  After  this  I  never  saw  him.  Having  detained  him  in  prison  a 
few  days  they  discharged  and  sent  him  back  to  New  Yorke,  having  no  evidence  to 
prove  anything  against  him."     (Lee  MSS.,  Harvard  Collection.) 

t  Leslie  Stephens'  National  Biographj'^,  title  Berkenhout. 

655 


§  204.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORKESPONDENCE.  [CIIAP.  XXII. 

Berkeiihoiit's  adventures  as  a  British  emissary  were  not  closed  with 
this  abortive  mission  to  America.  In  January,  1779,  when  in  Europe, 
he  offered  to  negotiate  with  Arthur  Lee,  who  reported  the  fact  to  Yer- 
gennes.*  Arthur  Lee  subsequently  informed  Berkenhout  that  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  American  independence  was  a  pre-requisite  to  peace. 
According  to  Arthur  Lee,  Berkenhout  had  proposed  to  him  and  Frank- 
lin an  interview  "fourteen  months  since,"  and  "  has  since  that  time  been 
sent  to  America  with  the  British  commissioners/'  and  "  has  been  im- 
prisoned in  Philadelphia  on  suspicion  of  the  object  of  his  mission,  and 
released  for  want  of  proof.  He  has  again,  as  you  see,  returned  to  his 
country,  and  to  his  endeavors  to  seduce,  by  offers  of  emolument  and 
titles  of  honor,  which  we  call  in  our  language,  honors."  Vergennes,  in 
reply,  on  January  4,  1779,  complains  that  Berkenhout's  letter  had  not 
been  inclosed  to  him,  but  says  that  "  you  shall  answer  in  plain  terms 
that  '  unless  he  assures  you  of  the  most  entire  acknowledgment  of  your 
independence,  and  brings  you  propositions  conformable  to  the  fidelity 
with  which  your  nation  and  government  glory  in  fulfilling  their  obliga- 
tions, that  you  can  not  consent  to  any  interview  with  him  or  any  other 
emissary.'"  Arthur  Lee,  on  January  7, 1777,  addressed  a  letter  to  Ber- 
kenhout stating  substantially  these  conditions,  t 

*  A.  Lee  to  Vergennes,  Jan.  3,  17r9,  infra. 

It  is  interestiuo-  to  observe  that  ou  Jan,  21,  1779,  Berkenhout  visited  Hutchin- 
son as  a  sort  of  volunteer  agent  for  Lord  North,  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  what 
grants  to  the  loyalists  could  induce  them  to  acquiesce  in  the  then  ministerial  projects 
of  conciliation.     (2  Hutchinson's  Diary,  239.) 

tin  a  letter  from  Franklin  to  Arthur  Lee,  of  Jan.  3,  1779  (Dreer  MSS.)  it  is  said 
in  reference  to  Berkenhout : 

*'  You  know  the  gentleman  better  than  I  do,  and  can  therefore  better  judge  whether 
a  meeting  with  him  for  the  proposed  purpose  of  making  peace  will  not  be  like  some 
of  the  former,  intended  merely  to  give  couutenance  at  this  time  to  Change  alley  re- 
ports, help  the  stocks,  and  assist  government  in  making  their  new  loan,  or  their 
friends  in  retailing  their  subscriptions." 

The  following  notices  of  Berkenhout  appear  in  the  papers  of  Samuel  Adams,  in  the 
Bancroft  collection  of  manuscripts. 

"  A  certain  Dr.  Berkenhout  was  here  (at  Philadelphia)  at  that  time.  He  had 
formerly  been  a  fellow  student  of  Dr.  Lee  (A.  Lee)  in  Edinburgh;  and  although  he 
brought  no  letters  from  him,  he  made  an  advantage  of  the  old  connection,  and 
addressed  himself  to  Richard  Henry  Lee,  the  doctor's  brother,  and  a  member  of  Con- 
gress. *  *  *  Dr.  Berkenhout  was  put  into  prison  by  the  authority  of  this  State 
ou  suspicion,  and  afterwards  discharged  for  want  of  evidence  against  him.  Perhaps 
he  suffered  the  more  from  a  certain  set  of  men  for  (valuing)?  himself  on  Colonel  Lee ; 
and  the  colonel  himself  has  since  suffered  the  reproach  of  an  angry  writer  and  disap- 
pointed man  for  showing  civility  to  a  person  who  was  once  acquainted  with  his 
brother."     (S.  Adams  to  J.  Winthrop,  date  not  given,  Bancroft  MSS.) 

Berkenhout  "had  imposed  on  me  a  belief  that  he  came  here  (to  Philadelphia)  with 
a  view  to  seek  a  convenient  settlemeut  for  himself  and  his  family  in  a  land  of  liberty. 
I  was  taken  with  this  generous  sentiment.  His  tale  was  plain  and  probable.  I  knew 
he  had  been  in  the  esteem  of  my  brother,  and  to  rivet  the  whole  his  pamphlet  was 
delivered,  contending  with  good  force  for  the  independence  of  our  country.  But 
however  guilty  the  man  really  was,  this  not  appearing,  the  magistrate  of  a  free  state 

656 


CHAP.  XXII.]  BRITISH    SPIES.  [§  205, 

Church.  §  205.  BeDJamin  Church,  whose  name  occasionally  ai)pear8 
in  the  following  pages,  was,  according  to  Sabine,  eqnally 
** distinguished  as  a  scholar,  physician,  poit,  and  politician,  and  among 
the  Whigs  he  stood  as  prominent  and  was  as  activ'e  and  popular  as 
either  Warren,  Hancock,  or  Samuel  Adams.  He  graduated  at  Har- 
vard University  in  1754.  About  L768  lie  built  an  elegant  house  at 
Raynham,  which  occasioned  pecuniary  embarrassments,  and  it  has  been 
conjectured  that  his  difficulties  from  this  source  caused  his  defection  to 
the  Whig  cause.  However  this  may  be,  he  was  regarded  as  a  traitor, 
having  been  suspected  of  communicating  intelligence  to  Governor 
Gage  and  of  receiving  a  reward  in  money  therefor.  His  crime  was  sub- 
sequently proved,  Washington  presiding,  when  he  was  convicted  of 
holding  a  criminal  correspondence  with  the  enemy.*  After  his  trial 
by  a  court-martial  he  was  examined  before  the  Provincial  Congress,  of 
which  body  he  was  a  member,  and  though  he  made  an  ingenious  and 
able  defense  was  expelled.  Allowed  to  leave  the  country,  finally  he 
embarked  for  the  West  Indies,  and  was  never  heard  of  afterwards. 
Sp.rah,  his  widow,  died  in  England  in  1788,"t 

As  early  as  January  29,  1772,  as  we  learn  from  a  letter  of  Governor 
Hutchinson  of  that  date.  Church  was  paid  for  preparing  anonymous 
papers  for  the  government. 

"The  Congress  ordered  Church  to  the  Massachusetts  council  to  be  let  out  upon  bail. 
It  was  represented  to  them  that  his  liealth  waa  in  a  dangerous  way,  and  it  was  though  t 
he  would  not  now  have  it  in  his  power  to  do  any  mischief.  Nobody  knows  what  lo 
do  with  him.  There  is  no  law  to  try  him  upon,  and  no  court  to  try  him.  I  am  afraid 
he  deserves  more  punishment  than  he  wall  ever  meet."  (John  Adams  to  Benj.  Kent, 
June  2-2,  1776;  9  J.  Adams'  Works,  402.) 

As  to  Church  see  further,  Tarbox,  Putnam,  285;  Wells'  Adams,  i,  33,  211,458;  ii, 

should  say  de  non  appareniibus  et  non  existentibus,  eadem  est  ratio."  (R.  H.  Lee  to  S. 
Adams,  January  10,  1780,  Bancroft  MSS.) 

Berkenhout's  arrest  is  noticed  in  the  Pennsylvania  Packet  of  September  5,  1778. 
In  the  same  paper  of  September  15,  1778,  it  is  said  by  a  correspondent: 

"The  hardy  Berkenhout  boldly  ventures  to  the  seat  of  legislation.  Under  the 
mask  of  friendship  he  covers  the  most  insidious  designs,  and  endeavors  by  cajoling 
individuals  to  worm  himself  into  publip  confidence ;  but  as  the  walls  of  the  new 
gaol  encompass  both  his  person  and  his  perfidy  I  hope  we  are  secure  against  him." 

In  the  same  paper  for  October  15,  1778,  is  an  animated  discussion  as  to  the  extent 
of  Arthur  Lee's  intimacy  with  Berkenhout.  The  controversy  is  pursued  in  the  issues 
of  October  21  and  December  29,  1778. 

Among  the  Lee  papers  in  the  University  of  Virginia  is  a  letter  from  Berkenhout 
dated  May  12,  1790,  in  which  he  writes  from  Cambridge,  England,  to  Arthur  Lee, 
then  in  New  York,  as  *'  my  very  old  and  very  dear  friend."  In  the  course  of  this  letter 
Berkenhout  says:  "I  was  too  near  being  hanged  by  Silas  Deane  in  the  land  of 
Quakers."  "Your  godson  Charles  (a  son  of  Berkenhout)  having  finished  his  educ.i- 
tion  at  the  Charter  House  was  migrated  to  the  county  of  Cambridge."  He  then  asks 
for  advice  for  the  future  as  to  this  son,  "  who  would  embrace  any  proposal  from  his 
godfather  Lee." 

*  This  was  in  cipher  letters  intercepted  by  Gerry. 

1 1  Sabine's  Loyalists,  313. 

657 

42  WH 


§  206.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XXII 

51,52,  250,278,  333,  334;  1  Washington's  Official  Letters,  36;  Appleton's  Cyclop,  of 
Biography,  title  ''Church." 

Church's  statement,  "  from  ray  prison  in  Cambridge,  November  1,  1775,"  is  in  vol- 
ume 49  of  the  Sparks  Collection  at  Cambridge. 

Digges.  ^  206.  Thomas  Digges,  whose  name  appears  occasionally 

in  the  following  correspoiulence,  was  said  to  be  a  native  of 
Maryland.  Howev^er  this  may  be,  he  was  for  some  years  before  the 
war  resident  in  London,  where  he  became  acquainted  with  Arthur  Lee, 
who,  on  December  8,  1777,  recommended  him  to  the  confidence  of  Con- 
gress, and  on  April  16,  1778,  described  him  to  Samuel  Adams  as ''a 
very  worthy  person,  and  together  with  his  brother,  who  is  yet  in  Lon- 
don, has  done  service  to  the  cause."  We  now  know,  however,  that 
Digges  was  at  this  time,  and  for  some  time  afterwards,  in  the  employ 
of  the  British  ministry. 

'*  In  regard  to  Mr.  Digges,  you  may  assure  Dr.  Franklin  that  he  need  be  under  no 
uneasiness  about  his  connection  with  or  attendance  upon  .Sir  Guy  Carleton.  He  is 
now  in  London,  and  my  knowledge  of  him  is  merely  this — he  luid  been,  it  seems, 
employed  by  the  late  administration  in  an  indirect  commission  to  sound  Mr.  Adams, 
which  scheme  appears  to  have  had  no  consequences,  Tlie  man  was  afterwards 
recommended  to  me,  but  having  heard  by  accident  a  very  indififerent  account  of  his 
character,  and  particularly  that  Mr.  Franklin  had  a  bad  opinion  of  him,  I  from  that 
moment  resolved  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  him."  (Shelburue  to  Oswald,  June  20, 
1782,  2  Hale's  Franklin  in  France,  46,  ?».)* 

Digges  sent  to  Adams  English  infor /nation  (no  doubt  of  a  decoy 
character  inspired  by  the  British  Government)  in  a  letter  dated  May 
12,  1780  (see  Adams  to  Digges,  May  13,  1780);  on  March  11,  1782,  he 
was  introduced  by  Hartley  to  Franklin,  and  on  March  22, 1782,  he  wrote 
to  Franklin  a  letter,  hereafter  given,  inviting  a  correspondence  as  to 
peace.     On  April  5,  1782,  Franklin  wrote  to  Hartley,  saying: 

''As  to  Digges,  I  have  no  confidence  in  him,  nor  in  anything  he  says  or  may  say  of 
his  being  sent  by  ministers.  Nor  will  I  have  any  communication  with  him  except 
in  receiving  and  considering  thojustification  of  himself,  which  he  pretends  he  shall 
be  able  and  intends  to  make,  for  his  excessive  drafts  on  me  on  account  of  the  relief 
I  have  ordered  to  the  prisoners,  and  his  embezzlement  of  the  money." 

The  last  we  hear  of  Digges  is  in  a  letter  from  Jonathan  Williams  to 
Franklin  dated  at  Dublin  June  17,  1785: 

♦'  You  will  not  be  surprised  when  I  tell  yon  that  Mr.  Digges,  who  had  so  much  of 
the  prisoners'  money,  is  in  the  same  prison.  He  had  been  playing  the  rogue  in  this 
country  (Ireland),  but  like  all  other  cunning  rogues  has  shown  himself  to  be  a  fool, 
and  is  now  paying  severely  for  his  folly  and  wickedness."  t 

In  a  note  to  the  letter  to  Adams  of  April  14,  1780,  given  in  7  John 
Adams'  Works,  117,  we  have  the  following: 

"  Mr.  Digges,  the  writer  of  many  letters  under  this  and  other  signatures,  was  a 
Maryland  gentleman,  who  remained  iu  England  during  the  war  and  maintained 
secret  communications  with  several   of  the  American  ministers,  and  not  improbably 

*  Digges'  letter  to  Adams  will  be  found  infra,  under  date  of  April  14,  1780. 
+  2  Hale's  Franklin  in  France,  47,  n. 

658 


CHAP.  XXIL]  BRITISH    SPIES.  [§  207 

with  tbo  British  Government  likewise  ;  though  apparently  he  was  but  httle  trusted 
by  either  side.  Dr.  Franklin  in  many  of  his  letters  inveighs  bitterly  against  him  for 
his  embezzlement  of  money  remitted  to  him  for  the  use  of  American  prisoners." 

In  the  Bancroft  MSS.  (America,  France,  and  England,  ii,  117),  is  a  memorandum 
saying,  **  Digges  was  a  rogue,  nuworthy  of  trust."  *  On  the  same  page  is  a  communi- 
cation (taken  from  the  Laudsdowne  Papers)  from  Digges  as  to  the  mode  of  addressing 
the  American  peace  commissioners. 

As  to  George  Digges'  relations  to  Chaumont  and  Thornton,  see  Digges'  letter  of  April 
14,  1778,  Paris,  in  the  Lee  Pai>ers,  Harvard  Library. 

It  was  on  a  letter  from   Digges,  es(i.,  of  August  30,  1778,   that  Arthur  Lee 

relied  for  his  assertions  as  to  complicity  of  Franklin  and  Bancroft  in  stock  speculation. 

By  a  letter  from  Richard  H.  Lee  to  F.  L.  Lee,  of  January  3,  1778,  (University  of 
Virginia  Collection),  it  appears  that  Mr.  Digges  was  one  of  the  witnesses  to  be  sum- 
moned before  Congress  to  sustain  Arthur  Lee. 

Further  reference  to  Digges  will  be  found  in  the  index  attached  to  his  name. 


'e5t^" 


Thornton.  §  207.  Of  Tliomton  we  now  have  the  following  informa- 

tion drawn  from  the  correspondence  between  George  III  and 
Lord  North  : 
George  III  to  Lord  North,  March  3,  1778 : 

'*  Tbe  papers  communicated  by  Mr.  Thornton  are  very  curious  ;  those  from  Edwards 
and  Forth  [secret  political  agents]  convince  me  that  France  will  inevitably  go  to 
war."     (Correspondence  of  George  III  with  Lord  North,  ii,  14'2.) 

George  III  to  Lord  North,  March  6,  1778 : 

'*  The  intelligence  from  Mr.  Thornton  of  the  discontents  among  the  leaders  in  Ameri- 
ca, if  authentic,  will  not  only  greatly  facilitate  the  bringing  that  deluded  country  to 
some  reasonable  ideas,  but  will  make  Fr.ince  reconsider  whether  she  ought  to  enter 
into  a  war  when  America  may  leave  her  in  the  lurch."     (Id.,  143.) 

In  a  note  Mr.  Donne,  the  editor,  says  this  letter  '^refers  to  the 
cabals  against  Washington  in  1777-*78,"  concerning  which  Arthur  Lee 
was,  from  his  brothers  and  correspondents  Samuel  Adams  and  Lovell, 
promptly  informed. 

George  III  to  Lord  North,  March  9,  1778 : 

"  I  return  the  communications  from  Mr.  Went  worth  and  Mr.  Thornton  ;  the  return 
of  Deane  is  a  very  fortunate  event  as  it  gives  full  time  to  the  news  transmitted  in  the 
Andromeda  to  take  effect,  and  I  should  naturally  conclude  may  bring  America  to  a 
state  of  tranquility."     (Id.,  145.) 

George  III  to  Lord  North,  March  10,  1778: 

"If  Mr.  Thornton's  communication  to  Lord  North  is  certain,  the  present  state  of 
fluctuation  will  soon  cease,  and  the  old  lion  will  be  roused,"  etc.     (Id.,  146.) 

Thornton  had  been  in  the  British  army  and  is  unquestionably  the 
authority  from  whom  Arthur  Lee  drew  the  decoy  statements  which  he 
forwarded  to  America  when  Thornton  was  his  secretary.  Nor,  when 
Thornton  was  dismissed,  was  Lee  in  better  hands.  Hezekiah  Ford, 
his  next  secretary,  was  branded  by  the  Virginia  legislature  as  a  traitor. 
Stephen  Sayre,  who  was  secretary  to  Lee  at  Beilin,  was  at  the  best  a 


*  See  Sparks'  Franklin,  ix,  15,  16,  note. 

G59 


§  207.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XXII, 

reckless  adventurer ;  and  Digges,  in  whom  he  placed  peculiar  trust,  was 
a  permanent  British  spy.* 

In  Arthur  Lee's  narrative  of  February  10,  1779,  he  says : 

"  Before  I  quit  this  article  I  must  observe  tliat  the  stock-jobbers  have  been  base 
enough  to  circulate  reports  that  my  brother,  Mr.  Izard,  and  myself  vrere  also  employed 
1 II  stock-jobbing.  They  found  this  upon  my  having  sent  my  secretary,  Major  Thornton, 
to  London.  I  will  state  the  facts  for  thejndgmeiit  of  Congress :  Finding  Major  Thorn- 
ton, from  the  activity  and  intrepidity  of  his  disposition  and  his  acquaintance  in  the 
army  and  navy,  to  be  a  very  proper  person  to  get  me  intelligence  of  the  designs  and 
measures  of  the  enemy,  I  sent  him  to  London  for  that  purpose  with  the  following 
instructions : 

'  February  21,  1778. 

'Instructions  to  Mr.  Thornton:  To  go  with  all  speed  to  London  and  there  learn 
the  real  and  probable  future  force  of  Great  Britain ;  the  number  of  men  raised  and  to  be 
raised  and  where  stationed  ;  the  number  of  ships  and  seamen  ;  whether  the  harbor  of 
Shields  is  fortified,  with  all  other  information  he  may  think  of  use.' 

"  He  accordingly  brought  me  a  very  accurate  account  of  the  number  and  disposition 
of  the  force  of  Great  Britain,  of  which  I  informed  Congress  in  my  letter  to  the  com- 
mittee dated  April  4,  1778."  t 

The  letter  referred  to  as  of  April  4,  1778,  is  probably  that  hereafter  given  under  date 
of  April  5,  1778.  It  refers  to  *'  an  accurate  list  of  the  actual  and  intended  force  of 
Great  Britain  "  being  forwarded,  but  of  that  list  there  is  no  recor  I  in  the  Department. 

In  a  letter  of  Edward  Bridgen  to  Arthur  Lee,  of  which  the  original 
is  in  the  Harvard  collection  of  Lee  papers,  is  the  following: 

**  I  can  not  omit  by  this  conveyance  to  relate  a  circumstance  to  you  as  a  caution. 
A  friend  of  yours  (whom  to  my  knowledge  I  never  saw),  while  I  was  at  Bath,  in 
April,  called  and  inquired  for  me.  The  servant  told  him  where  I  was  gone.  He  left 
a  card  with  his  name  '  Mr.  J.  Thornton,  No.  6,  Broad  street,  Carnaby  Market.'  Under- 
neath, with  a  pencil,  ^for  an  intimate  friend  of  Mr.  B.  at  Paris.'  At  ray  return  it  was 
delivered  me,  but  not  knowing  the  gentleman  I  declined  visiting  him,  especially  as 
I  have  heard  some  things  su^pisious  of  him.  I  have  lately  learned  that  he  went  to 
a  Mr.  Wharton,  in  Craven  street,  and  asked  the  loan  of  £50,  as  his  friend  Mr.  B.  was 
at  Bath.  The  gentleman  spared  him  £20.  I  hear  he  has  been  out  of  town  ever  since. 
I  imagine  he  has  been  the  bearer  of  some  of  your  letters  to  me,  by  means  of  which  he 
knew  my  address." 

This  letter  is  printed  in  2  Arthur  Lee's  Life,  84,  under  date  of  1777 ; 
but  the  editor  of  the  Calendar  of  the  Lee  MSS.  at  Harvard  gives  it  the 
date  of  July  2,  1778,  adding  *'  date  nearly  illegible ;  not  signed ;  in- 
dorsed, ^Bridgen  about  Thorn  ton.'"  That  the  latter  date  approaches  cor- 
rectness appears  from  a  memorandum  of  Samuel  Wharton,  as  to  this 
loan,  certified  on  July  13, 1778,  to  be  in  Wharton's  handwriting.  This 
is  in  the  same  collection,  as  is  also  a  letter  from  Thornton  to  Lee,  dated 
London,  June  24,  1778. 

In  a  letter,  of  the  same  month,  to  Arthur  Lee,  among  the  Lee  Papers 
in  the  University  of  Virginia,  Arthur  Lee  is  warned  against  reposing 
confidence  iu  Thornton,  who,  the  writer  says,  claims  to  have  in  possess- 
ion papers  of  great  value  connected  with  the  American  legation,  and 


*  See  supra,  ^^  150,  151,  192,  206;  and  also  index,  title  "Thornton." 
t  Silas  Deane  in  France,  161. 

660 


CHAP.  XXII.]  BRITISH    SPIES.  [§  208. 

whose  character  was  not  at  the  time  such  as  to  make  it  certain  that  he 
would  be  proof  agai  nst  British  goUl. 

The  internal  evidence  of  Arthur  Lee's  betrayal  by  Thornton,  and  of 
the  employment  of  the  latter  by  the  British  Government  to  convey  false 
intelligence  to  France  and  America,  has  been  already  given.* 

Entries  in  the  British  foreign  ofiQce  show  that  on  August  7,  1782,  copies  of  the  fol- 
lowing letters  froui  Tliornton  were  deposited  in  that  office: 

Florida-Blanca  to  Arthur  Lee,  May  17, 1777*  ;  Franklin,  Deaue,  and  Arthur  Lee  to 
Vergenues,  December  8,  1777*  ;  Franklin  andDeane  to  Congress,  December  18,  1777; 
Franklin,  Deane,  and  Arthur  Lee  to  Congress,  December  19,  1777  ;*  Arthur  Lee  to 
Congress,  February  10,  1778. 

Of  those  marked  (*)  there  are  no  copies  in  the  Department  of  State  at  Washington, 
These  were  probably  the  papers  which  are  spoken  of  in  the  last  note  as  having  been 
exhibited  by  him  when  visiting  England  in  1778.  They  may  have  been  then  handed 
to  ministerial  subalterns,  and  kept  unfiled,  till,  on  a  change  of  ministry,  it  became 
desirable  to  put  them  on  record.  The  first  entry  may  refer  to  a  mere  acknowledgement 
of  Arthur  Lee's  letter  of  March  17,  1777,  by  Florida-Blanca,  and  its  non-retention  in 
our  records  may  be  thus  explained. 

P.  wentworth.  §  208.  Paul   Wentworth,   though    of    American 

birth,  was  also  a  stipendiary  of  the  British  minis- 
try. He  was,  according  to  Sabine  t  "  of  New  Hampshire.  A  member 
of  the  council,  and  a  benefactor  of  Dartmouth  College.  He  was  disposed 
at  first,  it  seems,  to  favor  the  popular  cause,  since  in  1774  he  was  one 
of  the  agents  of  America  in  London,  to  whom  the  Continental  Congress 
directed  a  letter  to  be  sent  on  the  affairs  of  the  time.  He  was  in  Eng- 
land in  1734,  and  the  author  of  a  map  of  Holland^s  surv^ey.  The  next 
year  he  was  in  London,  and  joined  other  loyalists  in  a  petition  to  the 
government  for  relief.  In  1789  Dartmouth  College  conferred  the  de- 
gree of  LL.  D.  He  died  suddenly  on  his  estate  at  Surinam  in  1793.'^ 
He  was,  as  appears  by  2  Hutchinson- s  Diary,  129, 163,  as  also  by  George 
Ill's  letters,  in  London  from  time  to  time  during  the  Revolutionary 
war,  acting  as  agent  for  Lord  North. J 

Of  Wentworth  George  III  thus  spoke : 

''The  two  letters  from  Mr.  Wentwortli  are  certainly  curious,  but  as  Edtcards  is  a 
stockjobber  as  well  as  a  double  spy,  no  other  faith  can  be  placed  in  his  intelligence 
but  that  it  suits  his  private  views  to  make  us  expect  the  French  court  mean  war 
whilst  undoubtedly  there  is  good  ground  to  think  that  event  is  more  distant  than  we 
might  suppose  six  months  ago.  Mr.  Wentworth  I  suspect,  is  also  a  dabbler  in  the 
alley,  and  as  such  may  have  views  ;  I  am  certain  he  has  one  ;  the  wish  of  getting 
some  employment."  (George  III  to  Lord  North,  September  27,  1777;  2  Correspond- 
ence, etc.,  83.) 

According  to  the  editor  he  was  subsequently  in  communication  with 
Silas  Deane  and  the  French  ministry. § 

*  Supra,  9  150. 
t  2  American  Loyalists,  41.3. 

X  See  1  Hutchinson's  Diary,  186,  21S ;  2  id.  129,  163;  2  Correspondence  George  III 
with  Lord  North,  77  note ;  id.  83,  87,  105,  109. 

$  2  Correspondence  George  III  with  Lord  North,  77, 

661 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  LIMITATIONS. 

Growth  of  executive  co-ordi-        §  209.  lu  the  preceding  pages  is  displayed  the 

gradual  development  daring  the  Eevolution  of 
the  executive  department  as  co-ordinate  with  the  legislative  in  respect 
to  our  foreign  affairs.  We  have  seen  that  in  Franklin,  when  in  France, 
the  management  of  those  affairs,  partly  by  vote  of  Congress,  partly 
through  his  personal  ascendency,  was  largely  vested.  We  have  seen 
how  their  domestic  supervision  was  placed,  at  the  outset,  in  a  secret 
special  committee ;  *  how  it  was  then  transferred  to  a  permanent  stand- 
ing committee,  which,  though  supposed  merely  to  express  the  legis- 
lative will,  often  spoke  independently;  and  how  finally,  after  a  long 
struggle,  a  distinct  executive  department  for  foreign  aff'airs  was  con- 
stituted. We  have  seen,  also,  with  what  consummate  ability  this  de- 
partment was  managed,  in  full  concert  with  Franklin,  by  Robert  R. 
Livingston,  the  department  growing  in  strength  and  independence  until 
after  an  interval  which  showed  its  necessity  it  was  filled  by  Jay,  who 
exercised,  according  to  the  dispatches  of  the  French  minister  then  in  this 
country,  an  authority  in  matters  executive  with  which  Congress  did  not 
undertake  to  interfere.  Nor  did  this  growth  of  executive  co-ordinate- 
ness  exhibit  itself  exclusively  in  foreign  relations.  It  was  so  in  finance, 
over  which,  after  the  incapacity  of  committees  for  financial  work  had 
been  demonstrated  by  many  disasters,  Morris  was  granted  a  control 
which  each  day  became  more  and  more  closely  assimilated  to  that  ex- 
ercised by  the  executive  department  of  the  government  at  the  present 
day.  It  was  so  in  military  aifairs,  in  which  Washington  gradually 
assumed  the  position  which  the  executive  now  exercises  in  such  affairs. 
Tims  it  was  that  even  Congress  itself,  which  had  at  first  been  the  sole 
organ  of  government,  accepted,  under  force  of  circumstances,  the  "es- 
tablishment," in  response  to  Washington's  appeal  of  January  29,  1781, 
as  given  below,  "of  executives  or  ministers  in  the  departments  of 

*  Of  the  way  in  which  this  committee,  even  when  reduced  to  a  membership  of  one 
or  two,  sometimes  acted  on  its  own  responsibility  we  have  an  illustration  in  a  letter 
from  Whipple  on  Oct.  22,  1777,  to  Lovell,  where  the  latter  is  spoken  of  as  "prime 
minister  for  foreign  aflfairs."  (Langdon  Papers,  Sparks'  MSS.,  Harvard  College,  vol. 
52.)  Lovell,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  a  devoted  follower  of  Samuel  Adams,  and 
a  persistent  opposer,  with  Adams,  of  a  distinct  executive  organization. 

662 


CHAP   XXllI.]  CONSTITUTIONAL    LIMITATIONS.  [§210. 

finances,  war,  the  marine,  and  foreign  affairs."*  The  Coustitntiou  of 
the  United  States  did  not  make  this  distribution  of  power.  It  would 
be  more  proper  to  say  that  this  distribution  of  power  made  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States. 

Character  o^jpposuion,  and  §  210.  Of  the  Vehement  and  persistent  oppo- 
sition to  this  distribution  of  power  we  have  had 
abundant  proof  in  the  preceding  pages.  We  have  seen  how  incessant 
and  how  earnest  were  the  attempts  to  strip  Washington  of  executive 
functions  essential  to  his  ofiice  as  commander-in-chief,  and  how  reforms 
he  sought  for  were  refused  and  phms  he  cherished  thwarted,  until  it 
seemed  almost  as  if  his  resignation  would  be  forced.!  We  have  seen 
how  systematic  and  determined  was  the  opposition  to  Franklin,  to  Liv- 
ingston, and  to  Morris  ;f  and  the  correspondence  in  the  following  pages 
will  show  that  this  opposition  continued  to  rage  with  almost  unabated 
fury  until  peace  was  finally  determined.  Nor  was  it  only  in  public  action. 
The  papers  of  Samuel  Adams,  now  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Bancroft,  and 
those  of  Arthur  Lee,  now  deposited  in  Cambridge,  in  Philadelphia,  and 
in  the  University  of  Virginia,  show  that  animosity  to  executive  author- 
ity which  in  Congress  took  the  shape  of  legislation,  was  a  dogma  which 
burned  in  the  breasts  of  those  possessed  by  it  with  a  fierceness  of  zeal 
by  which  they  were  consumed.§     In  more  than  one  letter  of  grave  im- 

"  Hamilton,  three  months  later,  on  Apr.  30,  1781,  thus  wrote  to  Morris:  ^'I  was 
among  the  first  who  were  couvinced  that  an  admiuistration  by  single  men  was  essen- 
tial to  the  proper  mauagemeat  of  the  affairs  of  this  country.  I  am  persuaded  now 
it  is  the  only  resource  we  have  to  extricate  ourselves  from  the  distresses  which 
threaten  the  subversion  of  oar  cause."  (I  Hamilton's  Works,  by  Hamilton,  223.) 
But  true  as  was  this  position,  Hamilton  had  been  anticipated  in  the  support  of  it  not 
only  by  Washington,  but  by  Franklin,  by  Jay,  and  by  Jclierson. 

^  Supra,  ^11. 

X  Supra,  $  14^. 

§  Washington's  sense  of  the  danger  to  which  the  country  was  thus  exposed  is 
expressed  in  the  following  passage  in  a  letter  to  George  Mason  of  March  29,  1779,  a 
time  when  the  onset  on  executive  authority  was  at  its  height : 

"  I  have  seen,  without  desponding  even  for  a  moment,  the  hours  which  America  has 
styled  her  gloomy  ones,  but  I  have  behekl  no  day  since  the  commencement  of  hostili- 
ties that  I  have  thought  her  liberties  in  such  imminent  danger  as  at  present.  Friends 
and  foes  seem  now  to  combine  to  pull  down  the  goodly  fabric  we  have  hilherio  been  raising 
at  theexpense  of  so  much  time,  blood,  and  treasure,  and  unless  the  bodies  politic  will  exert 
themselves  to  bring  things  back  to  first  principles,  correct  abuses,  and  punish  our 
internal  foes,  inevitable  ruin  must  follow."  ( 1  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  281.) 
We  find  here  the  raising  "  a  goodly  fabric,"  and  not  the  mere  destruction  of  British 
authority,  set  up  as  the  object  of  the  Revolution.  And  how  earnestly  his  mind  was 
occupied  with  the  raising  and  completing  this  fabric  is  shown  from  another  passage, 
where  he  dilates  on  tbe  importance  of  obtaining  the  services  in  the  federal  system  of 
men  distinguished  for  capacity  and  wisdom  in  the  States ;  and  the  way  in  which  he 
presses  this  shows  a  conviction  on  his  part  that  these  qualities  were  wanting  in 
Congress:  ''No  man  who  wishes  well  to  the  liberties  of  his  country,  and  desires  to  see 
its  rights  established,  can  avoid  crying  out,  where  are  our  men  of  abilities?  Why  do 
they  not  come  forth  to  save  their  country  ?    Let  this  voice,  my  dear  sir,  call  upon  you, 

663 


§210.]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XXIIL 

port  we  find  it  declared  that  to  stop  the  usurpation  then  in  progress  a 
"Brutus"  will  be  needed;  and  so  serious  was  this  feeling  that  William 
Lee,  in  a  letter  to  Richard  H.  Lee  ot  March  26, 1779,  tells  of  his  calling 
a  son  '*  Brutus,  lest  there  should  be  in  his  time  a  Tarquin  or  a  Caesar 
in  America."  Every  one  who  appreciates  the  truly  heroic  and  sincere 
character  of  Samuel  Adams,  by  whom  the  same  views  were  held, 
must  feel  that  it  is  impossible  to  attribute  his  course  in  this  respect  and 
that  of  his  associates  to  mere  personal  dislike  to  those  whom  they  so 
bitterly  assailed.  We  must  seek  for  a  motive  for  their  action  in  the 
conscientious  repugnance  felt  by  them  to  executive  authority.  For 
this  repugnance  we  may  find  the  following  reasons : 

(1)  Their  temper,  as  we  have  seen,  was  destructive,  not  construc- 
tive. With  the  pulling  down  of  British  authority  they  were  exclusively 
concerned.    They  could  not  fight  and  build  at  the  same  time.    They 

Jefferson,  and  others.  Do  not,  from  a  mistaken  opinion  that  we  are  about  to  sit  down 
under  our  o\An  vine  and  our  own  tig  tree,  let  our  hitherto  noble  struggle  end  in  igno- 
miny." (1  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  282. )  In  a  letter  to  Duaue  of  Dec.  20,  1780, 
he  says,  "if  Congress  suipipose  that  boards  composed  of  their  body,  and  always  fluctuating. 
are  competent  to  the  great  business  of  war  (which  requires  not  only  close  application 
but  a  constant  and  uniform  train  of  thinking  and  acting)  they  will  most  assuredly 
deceive  themselves.  Many,  many  instances  might  be  deduced  in  proof  of  this,  but  to 
a  mind  so  observant  as  yours  there  is  no  need  to  enumerate  them."  (/d.,  283.)  On 
Jan.  29,  1781,  writing  again  to  Duane  he  says :  "There  are  some  political  regulations 
of  great  importance  which  I  have  exceedingly  at  heart,  and  which  are  draxcn  near  to 
a  conclusion.  The  principal  measures  to  which  I  allude  are  the  establish m en t  of  execu- 
tives or  ministers  in  the  departments  of  finatices,  war,  the  marine,  and  foreign  affairs;  the 
accomplishment  of  tht^  confederation ;  the  procuring  to  Congress  an  augmentation 
of  power,  and  permanent  revenues  for  carrying  on  the  war."     (Id.,  283.) 

This  tendency  to  strip  the  executive  department  of  the  general  Government  of  au- 
thority is  illustrated  by  the  action  of  the  Lees  in  securing  in  the  Virginia  legislature 
in  1783  a  repeal  of  the  duty  law.  '•  I  have  been  told,"  says  Governor  Harrison  in  a 
letter  to'Washiugton  of  March  31,  1783,  "  it  was  done  by  Richard  H.  and  Arthur  Lee, 
and  that  their  arguments  were  such  as  you  have  seen  from  Rhode  Island  [which  had 
refused  to  pay  its  quota  of  federal  taxes].  The  act  was  certainly  brought  in  by  them 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  session  when  the  house  was  very  thin,  and  hurried  through 
without  due  consideration.  They  were  so  very  quick  that  the  mischief  was  done 
before  I  knew  they  had  the  subject  under  consideration  or  they  probably  would  have 
missed  their  aim."     (1  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  301.) 

Arthur  and  Richard  H.  Lee  also  were  strenuous  opponents  of  the  impost  law  by 
which  it  was  afterwards  attempted  to  discharge  Virginia's  liabilities  to  the  general 
Government.  (See  Jefferson  to  Madison,  May  7,  1783;  Richard  H.  Lee  to  Whipple, 
July  1,  1883,  1  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  318.) 

On  the  other  hand,  the  sincerity  of  Richard  H.  Lee's  conviction  of  the  peril  of  execu- 
tive co-ordinancy  is  shown  by  the  following  letter  written  by  him  when  he  thought 
the  battle  lost: 

"Few,  I  believe,  feel  more  sensibly  than  myself  how  much  our  unhappy  country 
suffers  and  is  likely  to  suffer  from  the  want  of  those  qualities,  and  such  conduct  is  cer- 
tainly indispensable  to  the  success  and  well  being  of  society.  It  would  seem  that 
such  feelings  are  natural  to  a  man  who  has  the  misfortune  to  see  his  country  likely  to  lose 
those  blessings  of  liberty  that  he  has  so  long  and  so  strenuously  labored  to  secure  for  it." 
(Richard  H.  Lee  to  Monroe,  January  5,  1784  ;  1  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  Constitution,  337.) 


CHAP,  xxiil]         constitutional  limitations.  [§210. 

naturally  becamejealously  attaclied  to  tbeorgaiiizatiou,  in  itself  iiotliiDg 
more  than  a  league,  which  had  come  into  existence  simply  for  the  pur- 
pose of  overthrowing  the  tyrant.  And  this  organization  was  none  the 
less  sacred  to  them  from  the  fact  that  in  it  their  eloquence,  their 
vehemence,  their  directness  of  i)urpose,  made  them  the  leaders. 

(2)  Their  political  career,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  one  exclusively 
of  opposition  to  executive  encroachment;  and  the  executives  with  whom 
they  thus  came  in  collision  were  to  them  tyrants  who  impregnated  with 
tyranny  the  system  of  executive  authority  whatever  shape  it  assumed. 

(3)  The  idea  of  executive  co-ordinate  with  legislature,  familiar  and  in- 
deed necessary  as  it  appears  to  us,  was  then  new  in  politics,  and  eveu 
now  is  put  into  practice  only  in  the  United  States.  "Though  he,"  says 
Cromwell's  latest  biographer,*  "distrusted  anddisliked  a  parliamentary 
executive,  he  clung  to  a  civil  and  legal  executive.  From  first  to  last,  after 
the  closing  of  the  Long  Parliament,  he  struggled  for  five  years  to  realize 
his  fixed  idea  of  a  dual  government — neither  a  dictator  without  a  par- 
liament, nor  a  parliament  without  a  head  of  the  executive.  With 
dogged  iteration  he  repeats  :  '  The  government  shall  rest  with  a  single 
person  and  a  parliament,  the  parliament  making  all  laws  and  voting 
all  supplies,  co-ordinate  with  the  authority  of  the  chief  person,  and  not 
meddling  with  the  executive.'  This  was  his  idea,  an  idea  which  the 
people  of  England  have  rejected,  but  which  the  people  of  America  have 
adopted.  More  than  a  century  later  the  founders  of  the  United  States 
revived  and  established  Oliver's  ideal,  basing  it  upon  popular  election, 
a  thing  which,  in  1654,  was  impossible  in  England." 

Whatever  we  may  think  of  Mr.  Harrison's  position  that  Cromwell 
desired  to  institute  a  distribution  of  power  such  as  now  exists  in  the 
United  States,  there  is  no  question  that  he  is  right  in  maintaining  that 
in  England,  through  the  fact  that  the  ministry  is  virtually  but  a  com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Commons,  the  co-ordinancy  of  executive  and 
legislature  does  not  exist.  That  the  idea  of  such  co-ordinancy  was 
incomprehensible  to  revolutionary  France  is  shown  by  the  utter  lailure 
of  the  attempts  of  La  Fayette  and  the  Lameths  to  transplant  it  to 
France  from  America,  t  But  that  it  was  a  condition  called  for  by  the 
public  conscience  and  political  environments  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  it  is  essential  to  the  prosperity  of  the  United  States,  in  foreign 
as  well  as  in  domestic  affairs,  our  subsequent  history  has  shown. 
And  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  by  none  of  our  statesmen  was  the 
acknowledgment  of  this  adaptation  more  promptly  made  than  by  the  emi- 
nent men  by  whom  the  policy  of  this  co-ordination  was  most  vehemently 
resisted.  Richard  H.  Lee  and  Patrick  Henry,  who  continued  their  op- 
position to  it  until  they  almost  succeeded  in  defeating  the  federal  con- 
stitution w  hich  adopted  it,  became,  during  Washington's  last  term,  not 
only  supporters  of  Washington,  but  decided  federalists.    John  Adams, 

*  Oliver  C  romwell,  by  Frederi-c  Harrison,  pp.  193-194.  \Snpra,  $  78. 


§210]  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE.  [CHAP.  XXIIl. 

in  bis  notions  of  executive  independence,  went  still  farther.*  Samuel 
Adams  did  not  in  the  line  of  reaction  go  so  far ;  but  after  grave  delib- 
eration be  gave  bis  support  to  tbe  federal  constitution,  thereby  insuring 
its  acceptance  by  Massachusetts ;  and  as  governor  of  Massachusetts  he 
frequently  took  occasion  to  show  that  this  co-ordinateness  of  executive 
with  legislature  was  a  doctrine  practically  approved  b;  imself.  It  is 
true  that  with  Jefferson  he  held  that  no  functions  were  ^o  be  exercised 
by  either  executive  or  legislature  unless  such  functions  were  expressly 
given  to  them  by  the  Constitution ;  but  with  Jefferson  he  learned  to 
hold  that  liberty  and  order  alike  depended  on  the  legislature  and 
executive  remaining  co  ordinate  as  the  Constitution  prescribes. 

*  Supra,  $  14. 
666 


